105 replies to this topic

[T0RC4ED]

Right tools and tactics for the job will win the day 9 times out of 10.

[Wyr]

I hope all weight classes will have their role. Calling something better without mentioning the situation is never a good thing. I would be really interested how heat management will be solved in the game.

[Voidreaver]

Chiyeko Kuramochi, on 05 April 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Personally I am just looking forwards to a Madcat mk II

Though I plan to play a lot of scout mechs to, zipping around like an annoying mosquito you just can't seem to hit

Yeah... like the annoying 20-35 tons mosquitoes you can't hit, even though they're making roadkill out of your ground crews.

[Knusern]

I still close my eyes and wish for my PHX-1, sadly i dont think it will happen.
That said, i will take any speedy 45- 50 chassis carryng a large laser into battle.

[BerryChunks]

Soviet Alex, on 07 April 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:


We've already been told by the devs that our mech will never be totally destroyed. It's pretty standard with this business model. Based on what they have already confirmed as being in the game, heavier mechs will cost more to use than lighter ones, without any kind of "tonnage tax".



Well it's too bad mechs will never be totally destroyed. A cored mech is not salvageable.

I wrote this entire thing out and then the login timed out, so I'll make it briefer.

There's a few possible methods of taxing the player.

1. The mech's physical capabilities, such as torso twist and turn rate, create holes in coverage that would allow faster low weight mechs to kill people by back shooting all day.

2. The rewards for sending assault mechs vs players that send only light mechs will not equal the costs of armor and other repairs, or other costs for sending such heavy equipment in field (some form of taxation, be it dropship payment per ton or whatever).

In either case, the result is the exact same as if players in assaults or heavies lost their mech completely. It forces players to downgrade in mech weight to preserve money and/or gain it back. The effect is identical to mech loss.

Either that, or the taxation won't be enough to stop people from fielding pure assaults, and it will become a game of assault mechs. the only way to prevent 100 ton mass slugfests til the end of time is to have a cost structure that makes fielding assault mechs prohibitive or unprofitable. Mech loss is the simplest cost structure to that.

They are attempting a clever solution whereby people don't lose their shiny and don't cry/quit. That didnt stop Eve online, a 15 dollar/mo pay to play model, from being full ship loss and getting 300k players. It's just a psychological ploy for people to stop player number attrition due to lost shiny toys.


Then again I play things like Eve online or abandoned realms, where you can kill people, take their stuff, and then kill them again so I'm an extremist of the idea that actions should have consequences.

[Vollstrecker]

marwynn, on 05 April 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

You forget one thing: a merc chooses his jobs. Can't always be picky, but an outfit of Heavies and Assaults aren't going to sign up for garrison much.

Upkeep? For a unit that's fighting on whatever frontline there is that won't matter. Should be covered by the contract, paymaster's happy enough to keep your BattleMaster up and running: he paid enough to get you into that fight in the first place.

Besides, you ought to have conventional vehicles to do the bulk of your scouting.

Point I'm trying to make is a unit's composition determines the jobs it takes. If there are nothing but bad options, then fire your agent.

Not all contracts have paid supply and repair. In a negotiation for an Assault unit, you can bet that getting such rights will be coming out of other portions of your contract (such as salvage rights).

[Vollstrecker]

warner__, on 06 April 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

To make medium mechs truly the "work horse of the inner sphere", in other words the most prevalent mech, would need some sort of restrictions, such as tonnage (which seems unlikely for public games at this point) or as hinted upkeep costs.

Not necessarily, you can also have time-restricted components to missions to make taking a faster force preferable or a multi-point mission that requires defense so that you can't simply have assaults trudging between the points. A wise player (on either side) would definitely be able to make use of speedier units for reinforcement, flanking, or a feint.

If we truly do have repair costs and everything enabled, the beauty of things is that not only are Assaults more expensive to maintain, almost any real-world scenario involving scout/recon elements would work in-game too. The biggest tank you have isn't always the answer to your problems.

To quote Ulysses S. Grant, "The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on."

Edit: Bah, double-post. My apologies.

Edited by Vollstrecker, 08 April 2012 - 09:58 AM.

[Soviet Alex]

BerryChunks, on 08 April 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

1. The mech's physical capabilities, such as torso twist and turn rate, create holes in coverage that would allow faster low weight mechs to kill people by back shooting all day.

2. The rewards for sending assault mechs vs players that send only light mechs will not equal the costs of armor and other repairs, or other costs for sending such heavy equipment in field (some form of taxation, be it dropship payment per ton or whatever).

1) Already in the game. Ask the Dev Jenner pilots about it.

2) At this moment we know NOTHING about the in-game economy. Every post about costs & rewards so far is for a different game. Likewise we know NOTHING about the intricacies of matchmaking. Let's all try to remember our ignorance.

Edited by Soviet Alex, 08 April 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[Norrester]

Realizing that the in-game economics have not been worked out…. I have a question/thought about salvage. Assume that my Kurita lance over runs a Liao unit and I can claim a large amount of ammunition. Has/will any thought been given to the “fact” that the size and make of the round, say an SRM in this instance, will probably not be the same and therefore cannot normally be cross loaded into an SRM on one of my mechs?

I know that this probably overcomplicates things but it serves to make resupply an interesting matter, especially from the standpoint of a mercenary, who most likely has mechs from a variety of sources. I can image paying extra to source a specific make of ammunition, especially when I am working on contract for another house, due to distances, availability, etc. This may cause the larger mechs to become very cost intensive depending on their load out.

Just a thought…

[Corbon Zackery]

Play big or go home.

The Jenner is hit and fade mech able to support it self in the field with its lasers.

A Dragon was built to hold the line until the Heavy and assault mechs arrive.

A Panther mech was built to go out and blow up a scout mech.

Now lets look at the year its 3049. The role of mechs changes because 2 things happen new, and old star league tech is discovered. New ways of shapeing armor, internal structure, and light bulkly XL come into play

Doubleheat sinks allow more weapons to be placed on mechs.

Now a Merc is probally going to be running a Frankenstine with Lasers do to low costs unless you want to be buying ammo every day.

Mercs are not going to have the same tech as a house because it cost to much unless you work it into the contract. This stuff has just been invented do to the 4 wars no one really knows how it all works.

As a merc you might work 2 XL into the contract. No one is just going to give it away for free.

The Second part is a year later the Clans show up with a 30ton Puma that can target a leg of a mech with 2 PPC and blow it off. Also If you think speed is going save you your wrong because of a neat thing called a pulse laser. suddenly a roll of 10 to hit becomes a 8.

3049-3050 is a tough time for merc's the Clans did a good job thining out the ranks. Leaving the best of the best.

[BerryChunks]

Soviet Alex, on 08 April 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

1) Already in the game. Ask the Dev Jenner pilots about it.

2) At this moment we know NOTHING about the in-game economy. Every post about costs & rewards so far is for a different game. Likewise we know NOTHING about the intricacies of matchmaking. Let's all try to remember our ignorance.

Im aware of number 1. the question is, will it really be enough to dissuade people from going full assault, OR will people simply become more tactically clever to be able to use full assault teams no matter what tricks you try to do.

remember that a Jenner carries 6 tons of weaponry in many of its variants. a devastator carries 48 tons worth. So we can say that a devastator is worth 8 times jenners, as three jenners (95 tons = 1 devastator - 5 tons) still only carries 18 tons of weaponry.

If clever teamwork can fill the hole left by a slower torso twist rate, then the faster mechs will still be the subpar option.

Imagine the 300 technique of the spartans applied to assaults and you'll get the idea.

[Hawkeye 72]

LordDeathStrike, on 06 April 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

"Bigger Is Not Always Better"

definitely, not what she said!

I was hoping someone found the humor in this

My Atlas brings all the boys to the yard and they're like damn right its better than yours

Edited by Hawkeye 72, 08 April 2012 - 07:31 PM.

[Outlaw]

BerryChunks, on 06 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

the devastator holds 48 tons of weaponry. The Centurion holds 18 tons. The jenner holds 6. What this means applied is that 95 tons of jenners is 18 tons of weaponry. 18 vs 48 is a laughable difference. The larger the mech is, the more efficiently tonnage/mech is converted into firepower.

Thats just the way it is.

The major advantage that the Jenner has is its exceptional mobility, meaning that while the Devastator is trying to turn to face any one of those Jenners, the Jenner pilots have ample opportunity to put those quad medium lasers to use on the rear armor of the Devastator. Although it does have a fair amount of protection back there its rarely enough to stop 2 medium lasers in a single location, and therefore the light weight Jenners of nearly equivalent weight can easily take down a Devestartor, especially if those Jenners are playing it right.

Remember, MW4 got it all wrong as they made the rear armor a small slit on the back, where as it is realistically going to be the entire back part of the mech split up between 3 section LTR, CTR, RTR; and since MWO is aiming for a table top feel that is more than likely how it will be.

[BerryChunks]

Outlaw, on 08 April 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

The major advantage that the Jenner has is its exceptional mobility, meaning that while the Devastator is trying to turn to face any one of those Jenners, the Jenner pilots have ample opportunity to put those quad medium lasers to use on the rear armor of the Devastator. Although it does have a fair amount of protection back there its rarely enough to stop 2 medium lasers in a single location, and therefore the light weight Jenners of nearly equivalent weight can easily take down a Devestartor, especially if those Jenners are playing it right.

Remember, MW4 got it all wrong as they made the rear armor a small slit on the back, where as it is realistically going to be the entire back part of the mech split up between 3 section LTR, CTR, RTR; and since MWO is aiming for a table top feel that is more than likely how it will be.

I felt I had addressed that with the concept of good tactics on the part of assault players and 300. In other words, with all of them covering each other (and their huge armor rating), you really think jenners being more mobile is going to work for long?

[Soviet Alex]

Norrester, on 08 April 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

I have a question/thought about salvage. Assume that my Kurita lance over runs a Liao unit and I can claim a large amount of ammunition. Has/will any thought been given to the “fact” that the size and make of the round, say an SRM in this instance, will probably not be the same and therefore cannot normally be cross loaded into an SRM on one of my mechs?

In Battletech, ammo is interchangeable. Capellan LRM ammo for the Vindicator's LRM-5 can be loaded into a Davion Archer's LRM-20s. If we do get salvage, I would expect either a bag of C$, or a pile of parts for the Mech-Lab.

BerryChunks, on 09 April 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

I felt I had addressed that with the concept of good tactics on the part of assault players and 300. In other words, with all of them covering each other (and their huge armor rating), you really think jenners being more mobile is going to work for long?

1) The people who have played the game say that the Jenner pack does work. End of.

2) The 300 Spartans were outflanked & massacred. Nice analogy.

[Adridos]

Norrester, on 08 April 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Assume that my Kurita lance over runs a Liao unit and I can claim a large amount of ammunition.

Assume we do not share a border and then assume that even if we did, we are under a cease-fire agreement.

So it does nt matter if our ammo is usable for you or not, you will never have to find out.

[BerryChunks]

Soviet Alex, on 09 April 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

In Battletech, ammo is interchangeable. Capellan LRM ammo for the Vindicator's LRM-5 can be loaded into a Davion Archer's LRM-20s. If we do get salvage, I would expect either a bag of C$, or a pile of parts for the Mech-Lab.



1) The people who have played the game say that the Jenner pack does work. End of.

2) The 300 Spartans were outflanked & massacred. Nice analogy.

1) The jenner pack works because heavy mechs get singled out and keep turning to try to kill someone instead of taking the damage and manuevering smartly, + I doubt it had friendly assault mechs nearby to blast anyone who attacked their rear. The same idea of a medium or light protecting the backs of assault mechs can actually be done by more assault mechs. end of.

2) The 300 is more of an analogy about the way in which they use huge shielding and protect each other's back to become an unstoppable fighting force against equal groups. Or are you saying that if the enemy fields 4 assaults, your team will get to field 1000 jenners in response? end of.

End of. Alex. End of.

Edited by BerryChunks, 09 April 2012 - 08:21 AM.

[Soviet Alex]

@Berry: Let's assume for a moment that you are right & the Dev-team are wrong, that only assault mechs are viable because they have more weapons & armour. What's your solution?

[BerryChunks]

Soviet Alex, on 09 April 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

@Berry: Let's assume for a moment that you are right & the Dev-team are wrong, that only assault mechs are viable because they have more weapons & armour. What's your solution?

a tax/reward rate that encourages lighter mech use for all but the most important tasks, as sending assaults to every task becomes too expensive to manage, perhaps on an exponential scale.

Or,

Fully destructible mechs, leading to gains being made for the team that can only field cheaper light units and focusing on killing assault mechs, losing battles, but leading to high attrition for the other side of those expensive machines, and sending them back to equal footing.

I assume they are including more than the torso twist speed in the equation of how prohibitive it will be to send all assault mechs. If the 'balance' is purely turn speed, then it probably won't work forever. But from their language it seems like they're adding other costs to assault mechs to ALSO balance it. which is where you see #1.

The question is, will those upkeep costs be enough in the end? just ammo replacement and armor repairs for assault mechs is still a lot cheaper than a full repair of a medium mech that was "destroyed".

We cant say they are wrong, because we don't know what else they're planning to use. However we can say that the dev-team is not 100,000 individual minds thinking and doing every min/max to come up with an edge in combat.

Look at games like chromehounds and armored core. The design concepts were stylized by the "dev-teams", and players continually broke these core concepts that the devs had built the game around, with the chicken walking armor plate 6 howitzers from chromehounds and the worthlessness of heavy legs in armored core compared to light mechs. In Chromehounds especially, the mechs were designed in completely unintuitive manners by players, in ways that looked and felt ridiculous, yet these designs were more effective than the "common sense" or "intuitive" designs of the dev team.

Here's chromehounds concepts.

http://www.google.co...29,r:5,s:0,i:81

http://www.google.co...29,r:1,s:0,i:72


Here's what people actually did.

http://www.google.co...101&tx=33&ty=18

http://www.google.co...83&tx=77&ty=125

http://www.google.co...29,r:3,s:0,i:74

http://www.google.co...:72&tx=84&ty=50


you notice the complete departure from the original intent of the game?

These player made designs are superior in mobility and damage to the more standard and idealized "killer mech machine" designs the dev teams designed the game to be around. Which proves my point.

Dev teams aren't short sighted. they just don't have the same capabilities as 100,000+ people trying their best to create the most unbeatable designs.

Edited by BerryChunks, 09 April 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Dihm]

Adridos, on 06 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

lol, no heat, ER PPC and Heavy lasers.