51 replies to this topic

[Roland]

There has been a lot of talk regarding what kind of carrot can be tied to the end of a stick in order to make every type of mech "worth playing". People have struggled with trying to find some way to make a jenner equal to an atlas, equal to a hunchback, equal to a catapult.

You want to know the secret? They're not equal. One on one, the atlas is probably going to take out the others, given equal skill. I say probably, because in mechwarrior there's generally the potential for some nifty little tricks that pilots can pull out of their sleeves... but ultimately, the problem that folks are having is that they're really asking the wrong question, or at least looking at it from the wrong perspective.

When news first started coming out about this game, one of the devs (Bryan, I think it may have been) mentioned that one of the big things they were going for was to try and give every mech a role, as if this was a new thing. The guys in my unit found this kind of odd, because to us mechs of different weight classes always had roles in MW4. True, we played in a tonnage restricted planetary league, but that wasn't the only reason we used a variety of mechs. There were times when we voluntarily dropped under tonnage, because the lighter mechs gave us a better set of tools to work with on the field.

And that's really the perspective that you need to have, when trying to figure out answers to questions like, "Why won't everyone just take a bunch of assaults?" or "How do we make light mechs useful?"

Within a coordinated lance, the varying capabilities of mechs start to shine, in a way that you won't really see in uncoordinated brawls. Having that light mech's speed and sensors is a tremendous boon. Not just to the mech himself, but to the rest of the lance. His ability to relay information to the rest of his lance allows them to move to where they need to be. And tactical movement and positioning is the single biggest factor in who wins a fight in mechwarrior. Catching an enemy out of position can absolutely ruin his day, even if he's a better shot than you. This is one of the things that makes Mechwarrior great, and so different from most shooters.

Likewise, the medium and heavy chassis provide knock out power, when used in teams. And they can get to where they need to be faster than assaults. When coordinated, and fed good intel about the location of the enemy, a small group of mediums or heavies can tear through a lance. I've seen it happen many times. You aren't like to see a mech get one shotted in mechwarrior, but you will see a mech evaporate from the coordinated fire of multiple mechs.

And all of that being said, the assault class has its place as well. Although, in coordinated lances it's harder to bring that firepower to bear. The lack of mobility and speed prevent it from dashing across the battlefield, and so the field commander needs to orchestrate how the fight plays out if he wants to really use that power to its full potential. And again, that's where the other weight classes come into play. They're like appendages for the lance, that help guide things into place. Pushing and pulling the enemy to where you need him to be in order to drop the hammer on him.

So, perhaps a little bit rambly and long-winded there, but it's late. Overall though, I think that folks really need to consider this kind of perspective when considering the "value" of different units.

This isn't to suggest that I disagree with any of the moves that Piranha has made in this regard. Due to the need to earn money and experience in this game, I'm extremely pleased to see the thought given to other means by which to earn those things besides damaging the enemy. And some of the automatic networking of sensors is great, something we wished we had for years. But overall, that in itself isn't the real answer to making mechs useful, or giving them a role on the field. What gives them a role on the field is that they're part of a team, and they're performing important duties to help their lancemates make the most of their own chassis.

[FactorlanP]

My concern is that Base capture batlles will be... 12 guys drop in Assaults. Rather then actually trying to take the other sides base, they set up defensively. By staying defensive, they can concentrate an enormous amount of armor and firepower in a very tight area.

So, their opponents cannot lose, if they hang back and defend also. But to win, they must assault the enemies base defended by 3 full lances of Steiners... er... Atlases...

Will the game be designed in such a way that anything less then 12 more Atlases can be effective in thie situation?

Will the game devolve into 12vs12 Atlases... Wait wait wait until one side gets tired of waiting, and goes on the attack?

Just thinking out loud...

Maybe a partial answer is to use Battle Value multipliers to reward more XP/c-bills to a side that accomplishs or attempts to accomplish their mission with fewer tons/BV points...

Does that seem a little too much like clannish bidding though? Aff?

Edited by FactorlanP, 10 June 2012 - 10:33 PM.

[Strisk]

I think the game is going to be destroy all the other mechs or capture their base, with bases for both sides. I haven't seen anything that says one side will have to capture the other side's base in order to win.

That being said, in order to gain a maximum amount of exp/cbills per time/match you wouldn't want to camp somewhere for 20 minutes and get a minimal amount for winning, then do it all over again. It would be uber-boring and much slower than actually doing something.

[Evinthal]

FactorlanP, on 10 June 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

My concern is that Base capture batlles will be... 12 guys drop in Assaults. Rather then actually trying to take the other sides base, they set up defensively. By staying defensive, they can concentrate an enormous amount of armor and firepower in a very tight area.

So, their opponents cannot lose, if they hang back and defend also. But to win, they must assault the enemies base defended by 3 full lances of Steiners... er... Atlases...

Will the game be designed in such a way that anything less then 12 more Atlases can be effective in thie situation?

Will the game devolve into 12vs12 Atlases... Wait wait wait until one side gets tired of waiting, and goes on the attack?

Just thinking out loud...

Maybe a partial answer is to use Battle Value multipliers to reward more XP/c-bills to a side that accomplishs or attempts to accomplish their mission with fewer tons/BV points...

Does that seem a little too much like clannish bidding though? Aff?

Lighter lance gets eyes on the 12 Steiners Atlases turtling in the base and the commander calls down an air strike/artillery strike, or both, or multiples of both?

[Ramien]

FactorlanP, on 10 June 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

My concern is that Base capture batlles will be... 12 guys drop in Assaults. Rather then actually trying to take the other sides base, they set up defensively. By staying defensive, they can concentrate an enormous amount of armor and firepower in a very tight area.

So, their opponents cannot lose, if they hang back and defend also. But to win, they must assault the enemies base defended by 3 full lances of Steiners... er... Atlases...

Will the game be designed in such a way that anything less then 12 more Atlases can be effective in thie situation?

Will the game devolve into 12vs12 Atlases... Wait wait wait until one side gets tired of waiting, and goes on the attack?

Just thinking out loud...

Maybe a partial answer is to use Battle Value multipliers to reward more XP/c-bills to a side that accomplishs or attempts to accomplish their mission with fewer tons/BV points...

Does that seem a little too much like clannish bidding though? Aff?

It depends a lot on how effective a Raven or other scout 'Mech can be with TAG and Narc. If one can use ECM to get close enough to paint an Atlas, preferably with Narc, so that a friendly LRM-carrier can rain indirect death down unopposed since the Assaults don't really have a scout, then they should at least be able to bring the fight out into the open and hopefully beat them piecemeal or take the base with a flank if the defending force comes out all at once.

I would prefer to see a tonnage limit, just to make things more interesting - I always think that having some limitations makes for better strategy in the end than having none.

[FactorlanP]

Evinthal, on 10 June 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Lighter lance gets eyes on the 12 Steiners Atlases turtling in the base and the commander calls down an air strike/artillery strike, or both, or multiples of both?

Hopefully MWO will be designed in such a way that it happens like this.... Those darned Steiners Atlases need to fear lighter Mechs!

[Major Tom]

The biggest concern I have is medium mech class. So far have seen a pretty weak showing, we have an ultra fast scout style mech, and 2 heavy wannabes, none of which showcase the the heart and soul of the medium class. Which is the ultimate fusion of speed, armor, and payload.
Granted the unseen really gutted the category with Pheonix Hawk, Griffin, Wolverine, Shadow Hawk; but there are still a few mechs that could salvage the weight class, like the Crab, Dervish and Kintaro.

Edited by Major Tom, 10 June 2012 - 10:42 PM.

[EvereadyGold]

Evinthal, on 10 June 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Lighter lance gets eyes on the 12 Steiners Atlases turtling in the base and the commander calls down an air strike/artillery strike, or both, or multiples of both?

Or catapults/fatapults (LRM boat stalkers)

Additionally CRAB FOR NEXT MEDIUM

Edited by EvereadyGold, 10 June 2012 - 10:52 PM.

[SweetJackal]

Actually, when of equal skill, one on one I do not expect the Atlas to come out on top more often. This is because of many different factors that go beyond tonnage, firepower and things tracked on a TRO or in Mechlab.

Most importantly, your positioning and your enemy's positioning. How you use that to exploit things like terrain and the limited torso twist of some units will determine how well you do. If you are in a poor position you'll be kibbles and bolts, a good one will have you dealing the damage you need to while avoiding overcommiting your valuable armor resources to that combat.

What does come to mind is the difference in degrees of Torso Twist for the different mechs. It isn't an offical statement, but you can expect heavier mechs to have a more narrow or slower twist and expect humanoid mechs, mechs with articulated arms to have less of a twist than mechs like the Jenner that lack that range of motion in the arms.

From what I've seen from gameplay footage, the Atlas seems to have a Torso Twist of about 30 to 50 degrees from center (this is a rough guess as the numbers were blurred in the video even at HD), so the overall field of fire for the torso mounted weapons is between 60 and 100 degrees. Outside of that field of fire, it can only defend itself with it's arm mounted weapons if it can defend itself at all.

Now to compare to a Hunchback, from what I've seen the Hunchback has a Torso Twist of about 90 degrees from center (once again, guessed) for a total field of fire of about 180 degrees for it's torso mounted weapons.

Now even if you ignore that the Hunchback seems to have a faster twist speed and turning speed for both the torso and legs, the Atlas will have a hard time to bring all of it's weapons to bear if said Hunchback gets a good position on the Atlas. And I'm not talking about attacking from the rear, I'm talking about attacking from the side and using your greater twist range to keep it that way. Staying outside of the Atlas' torso twist range means it's only hitting the Hunchback with 2 MLas while the Hunchback is able to throw in an AC20 into that mix.

This gets worse when you have an Atlas tinkered for more firepower due to the temptation of fitting PPCs into the arms. Problem here is that PPCs have a minimum range so they make poor weapons to defend yourself with, making the range of possible positions that are unfavorable even greater.

Torso Twist changes up how positioning can be used and exploited to a degree beyond what the tabletop explored and gives another measure of balance. Assault Mechs would be needing to be more methodical in their aggression to make sure they keep the good position that will let them make full use of their firepower compared to Medium mechs. Medium mechs not being able to mount the same extreme firepower as well as an Assault but in turn have a much larger range of situations that are favorable to them, or can be turned favorable.

Once more, this is merely opinion, analysis of what we have seen and conjecture like anything else on these boards. Though Paul has commented on Torso Twist angles and speed being reason to pick Mediums over Assaults, no official statement has been given to say that the number or situations I've provided are correct.

[Blackfire1]

This is something I wanted to bring up into 'why mediums' Disscussion. But I'm too lazy to type it all out.

[Warskull]

FactorlanP, on 10 June 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

My concern is that Base capture batlles will be... 12 guys drop in Assaults. Rather then actually trying to take the other sides base, they set up defensively. By staying defensive, they can concentrate an enormous amount of armor and firepower in a very tight area.

So, their opponents cannot lose, if they hang back and defend also. But to win, they must assault the enemies base defended by 3 full lances of Steiners... er... Atlases...

That's really easy to fix if it becomes a problem. Simply remove the bases and replace them with mid map control points that can end the game.

[SweetJackal]

Blackfire1, on 10 June 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

This is something I wanted to bring up into 'why mediums' Disscussion. But I'm too lazy to type it all out.

Thank you but I think I can add even more by drawing parallels. And I'm fighting boredom


Lets just take a quick jaunt over to some Star Craft 2 analysis for something that will surprise almost everyone that has played the game. The unit that makes the Protoss Death Ball army, the Colossus, is actually one of the weakest and worst units in the entire game. It can only shoot ground units, it is a ground unit that can be hit by air attacks, it is slow and fragile with a big hit box, it is expensive on resources and time and it forces your army to be as one unit, your Colossus can't survive without the army to protect them and the army is too weak without the Colossus to act well on their own due to the resources eaten up by the Colossus.

So why is the Colossus strong at all, made at all or raged over at all? Positioning. If the Colossus are able to get a good angle of attack on a mostly ground army, make use of it's splash damage by forcing the enemy through a narrow choke, and able to be the artillery it needs to be unmolested by the opposing forces it can quickly melt their entire army.

Positioning will have just as critical a role in MWO. What makes an Atlas fragile isn't it's lack of armor or firepower but rather how limited it is at defending itself if it isn't in an ideal position. Being slow means it doesn't have the mobility to get out of a bad position or engagement and will also affect it's ability to salvage a bad position. Get caught with your pants down as an Atlas and you can kiss your mech goodbye.

[Nacon]

Basically it all come down to one word.



Teamwork

[Tramalhas]

Agreed. If two teams face each other in a huge uncoordinated brawl, assaults are surpreme. A team of assaults like this will, however, be annhilated by well coordinated teams.

[Roland]

SuckyJack, on 10 June 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

Actually, when of equal skill, one on one I do not expect the Atlas to come out on top more often. This is because of many different factors that go beyond tonnage, firepower and things tracked on a TRO or in Mechlab.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen a Raven take out multiple mechs on its own. A great pilot can do great things in a light mech. But, at the same time, I would generally lay out the odds in favor of the Atlas, if all else is equal. Mainly, it comes down to the fact that the raven is going to have to fight a perfect fight to kill the Atlas, while the Atlas really only has to get one solid shot in to rip one of the raven's legs off, and then its over.

The key point though, is that to me, this is ok. The purpose of the raven isn't to kill atlases. The purpose of the raven is to support the lance, so that the lance can kill all of the enemy mechs.

This is why I originally made this post.. because I think it's a fool's errand to try and somehow make all of the different weight classes equal, as some folks seem to suggest. I don't disagree at all with the aspects they've already mentioned, and which you laid out very well. Advantages in agility (which encompasses things like speed, turning speed, torso twist, etc.) should be in there to reduce the difference in power between an assault mech and a light. It should never be like WoT, where the assault mech is essentially guaranteed to win. But at the same time, I think that we need to keep proper perspective regarding the different weight classes.

If you look at mechs in a vacuum, outside of the framework of a coordinated lance, you're never really going to understand the true utility of different mech designs. It's only when they are used in concert that you will see the real value of light and medium mechs, that you're going to eventually see on the high end of competitive play.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

There is no doubt that most organised teams will run a mix of mech classes/weights as this would seem to be the optimum strategy, depending on how the game plays. I also think that this will be the case in PUG matches but for a different reason. I,m intending to pilot a medium mech as I prefer them. TBH I also want that blend of speed, armour and weapons to give me a better chance of surviving with a random set of players and linited teamplay. I'm unlikely to rack up massive repair bills while having a chance to earn reasonable sums, even on a loosing side. My mech will be customised with this in mind ie fast enough to keep away from most things with enough armour for survivability and weapons to take on anything faster.
As already posted I'm hoping that I will have manouverabilty advantages over the heavier mechs and an economic advantage as well.

[Dogbreed]

A big factor in 12v12 will be communication,, can you form a lance of friends and drop into a 12v12 as a lance using a voice server, then tactisc will help out class all those atlas's using moblity and coordination. True the altas team can be using a voice server, but not alot of moblity. even in WOT a wolfpack of faster mediums, can cut thru alot of other tanks and capture a base early in the game

[Toothman]

FactorlanP, on 10 June 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

My concern is that Base capture batlles will be... 12 guys drop in Assaults. Rather then actually trying to take the other sides base, they set up defensively. By staying defensive, they can concentrate an enormous amount of armor and firepower in a very tight area.

So, their opponents cannot lose, if they hang back and defend also. But to win, they must assault the enemies base defended by 3 full lances of Steiners... er... Atlases...

Will the game be designed in such a way that anything less then 12 more Atlases can be effective in thie situation?

Will the game devolve into 12vs12 Atlases... Wait wait wait until one side gets tired of waiting, and goes on the attack?

Just thinking out loud...

Maybe a partial answer is to use Battle Value multipliers to reward more XP/c-bills to a side that accomplishs or attempts to accomplish their mission with fewer tons/BV points...

Does that seem a little too much like clannish bidding though? Aff?

Easy, sneak a light in and bombard them from out of range with LRMs

[Smellyshoes]

I kinda get tired of the WoT objective. I think they should have multiple senarios:

meeting engagement
one side defense/offense
a "custers last stand" senario
capture the dropship


heck, I would like to be able to drive a demolisher

[Cik]

a jenner should not be able to destroy an atlas. i'm sorry, but that's just silly. a jenner should be USEFUL. but not equal to an atlas in effective direct killing power, because the atlas is built exclusively for direct killing power. it has no other trick. the jenner should not be completely ineffective at direct battle, but it's real utility is in it's speed and mobility, not it's direct dueling power.