33 replies to this topic

[Yeach]

IMO there should not be one single weapon that can "headhunt" a mech.

Mutlpile weapons fired onto the same exposed section for a head hunt kill is okay ie alpha-fired on to cockpit.

If you left the single-weapons that can take out a mech; this game becomes almost like a FPS with a sniper-shot.

[ManDaisy]

I have mixed feelings about head hunting. Head hunting allows for balance vs 2/3 slug mechs/ allowing lights to get lucky killing the big no movement assault classes.

If your gonna be a wall expect to be hit in the weakest area, otherwise keep moving to keep yourself alive.

Edited by ManDaisy, 18 February 2012 - 09:52 AM.

[Outlaw Wolf]

}{avoc, on 16 February 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

I have mixed feelings about this.

1 shot kills should be a skill thing, not clicking on this area and dropping death from the sky.

1 shot kills should also not be from a single weapon. Maybe 1 salvo kills possible.
In the example given, if the Atlas has enough weapons, there is no reason that he can't destroy a Jenner in 1 salvo (a salvo being either 1) an alpha strike or 2) a single cycle of all available weapons or 3) a cycle of all available weapon groups).

I agree, 1 shot kills should mostly be based off of skill. Even the Arrow system wouldn't kill an assault class 1 shot, a light - med then sure but that is basically a small cruise missile so not unrealistic. This system should just have a very limited ammunition size and require a TAG to lock and be very expensive.

[Strum Wealh]

Yeach, on 18 February 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

IMO there should not be one single weapon that can "headhunt" a mech.

Mutlpile weapons fired onto the same exposed section for a head hunt kill is okay ie alpha-fired on to cockpit.

If you left the single-weapons that can take out a mech; this game becomes almost like a FPS with a sniper-shot.

A single IS Gauss Rifle slug canonically deals 15 units of damage to a target.
A single Clan ER-PPC canonically deals 15 units of damage to a target.
A duo of IS Standard Large Lasers canonically deals 16 units of damage (8 units of damage per laser * 2 lasers) to a target.
A duo of IS Standard PPCs canonically deals 20 units of damage (10 units of damage per PPC * 2 PPCs) to a target.
A trio of Medium Lasers would canonically deal 15 units of damage (5 units of damage per laser * 3 lasers) to a target.
A quartet of Medium Lasers would canonically deal 20 units of damage (5 units of damage per laser * 4 lasers) to a target.

A BattleMech's head canonically holds 9 units of armor, with 1 unit of armor able to absorb 1 unit of damage.
The head is also a small, hard-to-hit target - one should need to be very lucky or very good (more often the former than the latter, IMO) to hit it in the first place.

Is it okay if a trio or quartet of Medium Lasers, fired as a group and assuming the weapons have had time to converge, can decapitate a BattleMech?
If those are okay, is it okay if twin IS Standard Large Lasers or twin IS Standard PPCs can do the same?

If those are okay, why couldn't - or shouldn't - a single Gauss Rifle or Clan ER-PPC (or even a lucky hit from a single IS Standard PPC) do the same?

Or, do we want a "magic anti-POHK shield", as was done for MW4?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 18 February 2012 - 12:54 PM.

[Mautty the Bobcat]

An Arrow missle or Artillery round is not going to take down a Heavy or Assault 'mech. Do some damage sure, but nowhere near enough to incapacitate them in one go. Lights and Mediums will be moving at a speed where the Long Tom won't hit them if they don't sit in one place and let it, and the Arrow is basically an artillery missile. Its not gonna have the lock on time needed to shoot before being pummeled, and if you do somehow hit them with an unguided shot then so be it. Otherwise from what I've seen they're used as targeting assisted artillery missiles.

[Yeach]

Strum Wealh, on 18 February 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

A single IS Gauss Rifle slug canonically deals 15 units of damage to a target.
A single Clan ER-PPC canonically deals 15 units of damage to a target.
A duo of IS Standard Large Lasers canonically deals 16 units of damage (8 units of damage per laser * 2 lasers) to a target.
A duo of IS Standard PPCs canonically deals 20 units of damage (10 units of damage per PPC * 2 PPCs) to a target.

A trio of Medium Lasers would canonically deal 15 units of damage (5 units of damage per laser * 3 lasers) to a target.

A quartet of Medium Lasers would canonically deal 20 units of damage (5 units of damage per laser * 4 lasers) to a target.

A BattleMech's head canonically holds 9 units of armor, with 1 unit of armor able to absorb 1 unit of damage.
The head is also a small, hard-to-hit target - one should need to be very lucky or very good (more often the former than the latter, IMO) to hit it in the first place.

Is it okay if a trio or quartet of Medium Lasers, fired as a group and assuming the weapons have had time to converge, can decapitate a BattleMech?
If so, is it okay if twin IS Standard Large Lasers or twin IS Standard PPCs can do the same?

If those are okay, why couldn't a single Gauss Rifle or Clan ER-PPC (or even a lucky hit from a single IS Standard PPC) do the same?

Or, do we want a "magic anti-POHK shield", as was done for MW4?

Only if you play your game 10 seconds at a time (which is what each TT round is equivalent to).
For reference try watching a movie and fast-forwarding 10 secs every time.

So lets just make all weapons follow TT and have a recycle time of 10 seconds and be done with it then.

[Strum Wealh]

Yeach, on 18 February 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Only if you play your game 10 seconds at a time (which is what each TT round is equivalent to).
For reference try watching a movie and fast-forwarding 10 secs every time.

So lets just make all weapons follow TT and have a recycle time of 10 seconds and be done with it then.

Well... IMHO, 8-10 seconds doesn't sound too bad for the recycle time a Gauss Rifle or PPC. Wouldn't you agree?

For the rest... my personal preference would be to see damage-per-salvo and salvos-per-second balanced against each other such that each weapon produced its TT-rated damage over a 10-second period.

For example, an AC-20 could fire one 20-damage shell (or burst of shells) every 10 seconds, or one 10-damage shell (or burst of shells) every 5 seconds, or one 5-damage shell (or burst of shells) every 2.5 seconds, and so on and so forth - it all works out to the same average DPS (20 units of damage per 10-second period, or an average of 2 units of damage per second).
Likewise, a Standard IS PPC could fire one 10-damage shot every 10 seconds, or one 5-damage shot every 5 seconds, and so on (though, more than one shot every 5 seconds seems too much; one high-power shot every 8-10 seconds seems good, IMO).

But, again, that would be just my personal preference.

Your thoughts?

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

TheRulesLawyer, on 17 February 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

That doesn't exclude respawn. You could use another mech in your stable for example if you want to be very strict to what they've said. Or it could just mean you increase the repair cost each time you die if you interpret it a little liberally.

I'd argue the opposite, that no-spawn is bad mechanic. It leads to lots of downtime and makes it hard to keep a group of friends together if the matches are as long as suggested. In a sub-5 minute match I could just shrug and say fine, but longer matches... ugh. I mean do people actually think sitting around an waiting is *fun*? More realistic- maybe. You can bring in reinforcements in a way that makes sense too. I just get that many people here are all like "I am the god of mechwarrior. All others should just learn to play and suffer in pain and torment for their failure." Its not really a helpful attitude for making a popular game.

I really have difficulty understanding why people would want respawn in a MechWarrior game. You think no-respawn would make the game less fun? I disagree.
With respawn, no one cares about death. The game becomes like standard deathmatch in CoD, and the experience deteriorates.

Without respawn, you have everything to lose, and the experienced is amplified. I can think of no better example than EvE Online. In all the games I have ever played, the only one that ever made my entire body shake with adrenaline was the PvP in EvE, because if you die, you lose EVERYTHING you are piloting. Your ship, your modules, and your cargo are either destroyed or salvaged by the victor. That risk can MAKE a game. Respawn can just make the experience repetitive and meaningless \

[rctechnologies]

}{avoc, on 16 February 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

I have mixed feelings about this.

1 shot kills should be a skill thing, not clicking on this area and dropping death from the sky.

1 shot kills should also not be from a single weapon. Maybe 1 salvo kills possible.
In the example given, if the Atlas has enough weapons, there is no reason that he can't destroy a Jenner in 1 salvo (a salvo being either 1) an alpha strike or 2) a single cycle of all available weapons or 3) a cycle of all available weapon groups).

Absolutely- skill should be the main factor AND teamwork. When playing other games, a team mate would act as a forward observer, and guide me (being very heavy and extreemely slow) to correct aim and fire at targets that I could not see due to mountains, extreeme long range etc. This applies particularly to the long tom. Being armed with two, I served as a form of support. Obviously the weakness being that a pilot in this role will not be able to defend themselves or evade assault. I personally hope these weapons do stay, however they should require the intense use of the compass, pitch and twist meters, BAP, radar, as well as assistance from a forward observer. Even then as [color="#ffa504"]Aegis Kleais™[/color] posted

"In the VERY VERY VERY rare chance you got a headshot that cracked the cockpit AND hit the pilot, sure, 1 shot kill. But it needs to be the EPITOME of rare. Even more rare than reactors going critical."

Yes, hitting a cockpit would be based on luck. Perhaps devs should have ammunition based weapons produce a physical projectile that follows a real mathematical trajectory. Perhaps ground coodinates should be a toggle function attached to the reticule, or radar?

[TheRulesLawyer]

Alaric Wolf Kerensky, on 18 February 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

I really have difficulty understanding why people would want respawn in a MechWarrior game. You think no-respawn would make the game less fun? I disagree.
With respawn, no one cares about death. The game becomes like standard deathmatch in CoD, and the experience deteriorates.

Without respawn, you have everything to lose, and the experienced is amplified. I can think of no better example than EvE Online. In all the games I have ever played, the only one that ever made my entire body shake with adrenaline was the PvP in EvE, because if you die, you lose EVERYTHING you are piloting. Your ship, your modules, and your cargo are either destroyed or salvaged by the victor. That risk can MAKE a game. Respawn can just make the experience repetitive and meaningless \

Without respawn, the objectives are pointless. You can just win by killing your enemy. Nobody bothers doing anything but death matches because killing the other side is the surest way to win the game. At best nobody move on the objectives until there is overwhelming odds in their faver. The game ends up bogging down in heavily defensive play since any aggressive move is too risky. Fantastic game modes like BF's conquest can't function without respawn.

[Felicitatem Parco]

TheRulesLawyer, on 22 February 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Without respawn, the objectives are pointless. You can just win by killing your enemy. Nobody bothers doing anything but death matches because killing the other side is the surest way to win the game. At best nobody move on the objectives until there is overwhelming odds in their faver. The game ends up bogging down in heavily defensive play since any aggressive move is too risky. Fantastic game modes like BF's conquest can't function without respawn.

Not really, because we as players will be responsible for Mech repair costs, and retreating from an Objective-Mission that's gone awry might be better financially than fighting to the death when you have the lower-hand.

Also, Information Warfare will play very heavily into Obj. Missions where there are 2 objectives. Do you split your defense into 2? Do you defend only 1 objective? Remember: "if you try to defend everything, you defend nothing."

Edited by Prosperity Park, 22 February 2012 - 09:48 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Prosperity Park, on 22 February 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Not really, because we as players will be responsible for Mech repair costs, and retreating from an Objective-Mission that's gone awry might be better financially than fighting to the death when you have the lower-hand.

So once they're done with their death match they'll give up easier. Great.

[Felicitatem Parco]

TheRulesLawyer, on 22 February 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

So once they're done with their death match they'll give up easier. Great.

Or... that deathmatch was a distraction while 2 of their temmates captured one of the objectives...

[canned wolf]

Chromehounds didn't allow respawns and the play in that was very tactical. Granted, weapon balance issue created other complications. If you want objective based play then you make taking an objective easier than killing the other team. On maps the size that they are talking about that seems likely. You have to find the enemy before you can kill them.

They can balance the game to make either system work, I would prefer no respawns because as has been stated, it makes people think and play cautiously rather than running in alpha striking and then respawning.