60 replies to this topic

[FireStorm2]

Rhinehart, on 30 April 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Ahem, No. There should be no limits imposed on someone should be able to pilot. Especially true if someone has purchased a chassis from the store they should have the right to pilot it when they please. No one should be forced to structure a unit according to what anybody elses Ideal of a company should be. If they want to take the Lyran approach and field all assaults they should be able to. If they want to play as Davion Light Guards and run rings around the opposition with fast jumping mechs that is their choice. YOUR job is to use your assets to defeat the enemy regardless of what composition they choose. On a battlefield the enemy rarely chooses their dispositions to suit you. There is absolutely no reason MWO needs to start anything like that. Learn to use what you have effectively. If you lose a match or two, don't assume you'd have won with all Atlas's. Try using better tactics or develorping your skills. Just because someone beats you doesn't mean they had a better mech. If you are worried about imbalance, wait until the Clan invasion. Then you'll get too see what imbalance really looks like.

The concern isn't so much about imbalance as it is about desiring a game where all the mechs in the game will have a place. I personally would not mind if people are able to take all assault mechs in their configuration, so long as an opponent would have an opportunity to take an equivalently capable number of lighter units. That could entail asymmetrical numbers of units, or perhaps the need to take lighter weaponry or lower tech weapons and equipment on the assault mechs.

All else being equal, a given number of lighter units generally will (and should) lose to the same number of heavier units. Aspects such as player skill and loadout obviously would enter into it, but assuming those are equivalent, it seems to me that the best way to ensure the lighter units get reasonable play time is to make sure they have some sort of tradeoff that makes them viable. Being able to outnumber the heavier units could certainly accomplish that, and would maintain the feel of the Battletech universe.

Edited by Fire§torm, 30 April 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[Volthorne]

Fire§torm, on 30 April 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

The concern isn't so much about imbalance as it is about desiring a game where all the mechs in the game will have a place. I would not mind if people are able to take all assault mechs in their configuration, so long as an opponent would have an opportunity to take an equivalently capable number of lighter units. That could entail asymmetrical numbers of units, or perhaps the need to take lighter weaponry or lower tech weapons and equipment on the assault mechs.

All else being equal, a given number of lighter units generally will (and should) lose to the same number of heavier units. Aspects such as player skill and loadout obviously would enter into it, but assuming those are equivalent, it seems to me that the best way to ensure the lighter units get reasonable play time is to make sure they have some sort of tradeoff that makes them viable. Being able to outnumber the heavier units could certainly accomplish that, and would maintain the feel of the Battletech universe.

Well, considering that all light 'mechs will be easily x3-4 faster than most assaults, maneuverability (read: hard to hit) they'll certainly have the upper-hand on the big clunky assaults. Your comparison has been voided.

Edited by Volthorne, 30 April 2012 - 06:38 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Volthorne, on 30 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Well, considering that all light 'mechs will be easily x3-4 faster than most assaults, maneuverability (read: hard to hit) they'll certainly have the upper-hand on the big clunky assaults. Your comparison has been voided.

+1 sir. thing is, your looking at a lopsided type of balance Firestorm. Saying that just because say MY team is all in atlas mechs and theres say 6 of us, you should field 12 lighter mechs, uh i do not think so. see it comes down to, just because we assaults carry massive firepower, it doesnt mean we are gods, tho, to hear us in the locker rooms we think it alot, but, in truth, we have our weaknesses, tho, for security reasons, i will not say more.

[FireStorm2]

Volthorne, on 30 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Well, considering that all light 'mechs will be easily x3-4 faster than most assaults, maneuverability (read: hard to hit) they'll certainly have the upper-hand on the big clunky assaults. Your comparison has been voided.

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 April 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

+1 sir. thing is, your looking at a lopsided type of balance Firestorm. Saying that just because say MY team is all in atlas mechs and theres say 6 of us, you should field 12 lighter mechs, uh i do not think so. see it comes down to, just because we assaults carry massive firepower, it doesnt mean we are gods, tho, to hear us in the locker rooms we think it alot, but, in truth, we have our weaknesses, tho, for security reasons, i will not say more.

I think you place too much emphasis on the impact of maneuverability. Certainly lower speed/maneuverability are a liability in heavier designs, but in previous games it was insufficient to make the units equal. I doubt rather strongly that the number of pilot matches spent in medium mechs will approach the number of pilot matches spent in assaults if there is not some other impetus to encourage piloting of the lighter designs.

Heavier mechs have both more firepower and more armor. They do pay for that in mobility, but they do not pay enough for it to give lighter units 'the upper hand' in an engagement.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Firestorm, I am going to quote every single COMBAT TESTED Fighter Pilot I have ever spoken to about speed/maneuverability in a fight:
Speed is life. Out turn them or die. In no way Firestorm am I placing more emphasis on the ability to turn in a fight. Also being even just an RC Combat pilot, I KNOW from experience that if I cannot out turn or out run I will lose. Also, years of MMO Combat Flight sims like both Aces High games or even Airwarrior way way way back when, or any number of Combat Flight sim that is single player. Turning and Speed will save your life again and again and again. Fail to take into consideration what a well placed turn can mean, and go ahead and eject now.

[FireStorm2]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 April 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Firestorm, I am going to quote every single COMBAT TESTED Fighter Pilot I have ever spoken to about speed/maneuverability in a fight:
Speed is life. Out turn them or die. In no way Firestorm am I placing more emphasis on the ability to turn in a fight. Also being even just an RC Combat pilot, I KNOW from experience that if I cannot out turn or out run I will lose. Also, years of MMO Combat Flight sims like both Aces High games or even Airwarrior way way way back when, or any number of Combat Flight sim that is single player. Turning and Speed will save your life again and again and again. Fail to take into consideration what a well placed turn can mean, and go ahead and eject now.

I absolutely agree that in air combat, the ability to out-turn an opponent, or at least to vastly outperform him in some other, non-firepower and armor related aspect of your vehicle's performance envelope, will often or always hand you the victory. This is not a flight combat simulation, however.

In a Mechwarrior or Battletech game, mobility, while important, is not nearly the be-all-end-all that it is in a flight sim. Other aspects such as the ability to twist your torso to aim off-axis, the ability to stop in place while retaining the ability to turn (possibly faster than you could while moving), the reduced significance of the third dimension, and the ability to survive multiple salvoes from weapons mounted on lighter opponents change the dynamic significantly.

As a better analogy, compare the reality of tank combat. Armor and firepower (along with a balance of mobility) are key there. No one advocates sending Humvees or Infantry Fighting Vehicles into combat against main battle tanks because they would be shredded. Occasionally these kinds of vehicles have managed to succeed by outranging main battle tanks of inferior technology, but while their mobility could be an asset under those circumstances, it would not be the sole deciding factor. Facing armored vehicles mounting weapons capable of reaching the same engagement ranges, I doubt they would fare so well.

With that said, lighter vehicles certainly have a place, be it for scouting or as artillery, or for harassment. A commander who sent them unsupported into a stand-up fight with advanced main battle tanks would probably be facing some tough questions after the battle was over, though, assuming he survived.

Edited by Fire§torm, 30 April 2012 - 07:42 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

While your right on the reality of tank combat, for battlemechs, lets say theres a nasty volly of Arrow IV's coming at a mech, the ability to quickly duck behind a building or a hill or break LOS on the missiles could save that mech destruction. A sudden jump when a rail gun round or a missiles coming could make a HUGE difference. Dont underestimate it.

[Straker]

I think that the plans for information warfare will also have an impact on this situation. As it seems that he location of enemies and intel is perishable, a slower team of assault mechs will have a hard time reacting to the enemy. Where a more mobile team can get where they need to get. I think I read somewhere at there may be objectives such as destroying a base in the matches. A faster team will be able to react and get to these objectives better.

Think about the video we saw with the urban fighting. Imagine 8 assault mechs trying to get down the same street. They will be forced to spread out in order to not kill each other. Once they spread out a faster more maneuverable force can tag team them.

Hopefully it balances itself.

[FireStorm2]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 April 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

While your right on the reality of tank combat, for battlemechs, lets say theres a nasty volly of Arrow IV's coming at a mech, the ability to quickly duck behind a building or a hill or break LOS on the missiles could save that mech destruction. A sudden jump when a rail gun round or a missiles coming could make a HUGE difference. Dont underestimate it.

That point is taken. For something like a scout or harasser, the ability to evade the wrath of an entire company shooting at you from long range by dodging behind some object is probably the only thing that could, just maybe, save your mech.

As for dodging firepower from assault mechs with a force composed entirely of lighter units, I don't think it would be possible to do that consistently enough to bring them to parity as a meat-and-potatoes line unit without some other incentive.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Well, guess in the end, we will see huh hehe

[Straker]

Fire§torm, on 30 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

That point is taken. For something like a scout or harasser, the ability to evade the wrath of an entire company shooting at you from long range by dodging behind some object is probably the only thing that could, just maybe, save your mech.

As for dodging firepower from assault mechs with a force composed entirely of lighter units, I don't think it would be possible to do that consistently enough to bring them to parity as a meat-and-potatoes line unit without some other incentive.

Well compare the Sherman tank against the Tiger tank in ww2. A Sherman could hardly even penetrate the armor of a Tiger. The only reason the Sherman was viable was because we just kept sending so many of them. The Sherman was much faster and more maneuverable, but way outclassed vs a Tiger.

[LordDeathStrike]

what about 12 atlases set up as such.

4 master and commanders, each with a guass rifle, 2 large lasers, and lrm 20 with artemis IV. 7x zoom mod, ams, ecm and bap.

4 lbx 10 ac/ac 20 brawlers with med lasers and srms with magnetic vision, double ams to block lrm spam, and extra heat sinks.

4 with dual arm ppcs ac5 in torso and double lrm 20s with artemis IV with ams and 7x zoom and ecm.

this is a very balanced range set of mechs, you got brawlers to cover up close, mid range monsters with double ams to keep the enemy on their toes, and long range beasts to snipe with gauss rifles to the cockpits of whatever sticks its head out.

as long as the atlas can mount ecm and bap then it can be set up as a mobile scan tower......

your lights might be fast, but our 1200 tons of fun can crush you with a single blow, and we can cover every angle of the compass back to back.

Straker, on 30 April 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Well compare the Sherman tank against the Tiger tank in ww2. A Sherman could hardly even penetrate the armor of a Tiger. The only reason the Sherman was viable was because we just kept sending so many of them. The Sherman was much faster and more maneuverable, but way outclassed vs a Tiger.

the only reason we beat the tiger was because of what they cost to build, while the tiger sat there running out of ammo pwning shermans our bombers would take out the tiger factories and fighters would bomb the tiger from above.

it was literally impossible for shermans to kill tigers without scoring a lucky crit on the ammo box of the turret from behind it. which only happened when the tigers ran out of gas or where asleep on the job.

Fire§torm, on 30 April 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

The concern isn't so much about imbalance as it is about desiring a game where all the mechs in the game will have a place. I personally would not mind if people are able to take all assault mechs in their configuration, so long as an opponent would have an opportunity to take an equivalently capable number of lighter units. That could entail asymmetrical numbers of units, or perhaps the need to take lighter weaponry or lower tech weapons and equipment on the assault mechs.

All else being equal, a given number of lighter units generally will (and should) lose to the same number of heavier units. Aspects such as player skill and loadout obviously would enter into it, but assuming those are equivalent, it seems to me that the best way to ensure the lighter units get reasonable play time is to make sure they have some sort of tradeoff that makes them viable. Being able to outnumber the heavier units could certainly accomplish that, and would maintain the feel of the Battletech universe.

an assault mech in 3049 only carries roughly 3x the firepower of a mech 1/5th its weight, so 5x bigger, only 3x firepower. note a jenner at 1/4th the atlas size, has the same 4 med lasers the atlas has, and can carry an lrm rack or srm as well. so it has nearly half the firepower of the atlas, just missing 1 of its missiles and the ac. the cost to the atlas is that its running speed is less then half that of the jenner. its all about trade offs.

Edited by LordDeathStrike, 30 April 2012 - 08:19 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

LDS, I did NOT know we are capable IRL of a 'critical' hit. I KNOW we can get bloody lucky, but thats about it. in terms of WW2 dumb weapons. Now, take 2012 smart weapons and we can put that cruise missile thru your bathroom window and have it waiting on your bed before you go boom lol. But, I seriously hope they dont ALWAYS have us facing off in a balanced fight in terms of numbers. I want to see matches of major imbalace because its 2 am here in texas and like 8am in london for example.

[Yeach]

Maybe its best to go back to stock mechs so mech choice DO dictate your role...

[Rejarial Galatan]

machine dictates partially, its how YOU load the thing.

[FireStorm2]

LordDeathStrike, on 30 April 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

an assault mech in 3049 only carries roughly 3x the firepower of a mech 1/5th its weight, so 5x bigger, only 3x firepower. note a jenner at 1/4th the atlas size, has the same 4 med lasers the atlas has, and can carry an lrm rack or srm as well. so it has nearly half the firepower of the atlas, just missing 1 of its missiles and the ac. the cost to the atlas is that its running speed is less then half that of the jenner. its all about trade offs.

I think you have more or less the same idea about the general place of assault and light mechs that I do, but you seem to be underestimating the differential.

The Atlas weighs 100 tons while the Jenner weighs 35 tons, which is more like 3x bigger than 4x bigger. As for firepower, the AC/20 and LRM/20 of the Atlas are its heaviest and most powerful weapons. The stock Atlas carries a total of 36 tons of weapons and ammo and 10 tons of extra heat sinks (which are an integral part of its firepower package) while the stock Jenner carries 7 tons of weapons and ammo and no extra heat sinks. The Atlas thus has a firepower package 6.5 times the size of the one on the Jenner.

The Atlas carries 304 points of armor while the Jenner carries 64 points, giving the Atlas 4.75 times the armor of the Jenner.

Granted, in a Mechwarrior or Battletech game I wouldn't usually call a fight between four to six Jenners and a single Atlas even for a number of reasons, but it's clear that the Atlas actually carries a disproportionate amount of armor and weaponry. I certainly wouldn't call a typical fight between a single Atlas and a single Jenner even by any stretch of the imagination.

[-Ramrod-]

Why would you even try to limit the lances? Hell a mercenary unit could have 12 Atlas's just for the fun of it. I know people don't want an arms race but...its going to happen in one way or the other...especially when the Clans come. Besides a bunch of assault mechs can be taken out by a skilled heavy or even medium mech. And for me its kind of a nostalgia thing. I played Mechwarrior 1 and it was fun to load out your entire team as Locusts (which I hope will be implemented).

[LordDeathStrike]

Fire§torm, on 30 April 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

I think you have more or less the same idea about the general place of assault and light mechs that I do, but you seem to be underestimating the differential.

The Atlas weighs 100 tons while the Jenner weighs 35 tons, which is more like 3x bigger than 4x bigger. As for firepower, the AC/20 and LRM/20 of the Atlas are its heaviest and most powerful weapons. The stock Atlas carries a total of 36 tons of weapons and ammo and 10 tons of extra heat sinks (which are an integral part of its firepower package) while the stock Jenner carries 7 tons of weapons and ammo and no extra heat sinks. The Atlas thus has a firepower package 6.5 times the size of the one on the Jenner.

The Atlas carries 304 points of armor while the Jenner carries 64 points, giving the Atlas 4.75 times the armor of the Jenner.

Granted, in a Mechwarrior or Battletech game I wouldn't usually call a fight between four to six Jenners and a single Atlas even for a number of reasons, but it's clear that the Atlas actually carries a disproportionate amount of armor and weaponry. I certainly wouldn't call a typical fight between a single Atlas and a single Jenner even by any stretch of the imagination.

the jenner doesnt have to fight the atlas though, he can just throttle up and run to his buddies. that atlas cant do anything but limp along at 50-60 kph.

Ramrod AI, on 30 April 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Why would you even try to limit the lances? Hell a mercenary unit could have 12 Atlas's just for the fun of it. I know people don't want an arms race but...its going to happen in one way or the other...especially when the Clans come. Besides a bunch of assault mechs can be taken out by a skilled heavy or even medium mech. And for me its kind of a nostalgia thing. I played Mechwarrior 1 and it was fun to load out your entire team as Locusts (which I hope will be implemented).

as long as atlas kungfu meelee is implemented you may have your locust, that way i can grab one in each hand and smack the other 10 with them like nunchaku

[Rejarial Galatan]

LDS this ones for you: lets see said jenner run after its had a leg torn off.

[FireStorm2]

LordDeathStrike, on 30 April 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

the jenner doesnt have to fight the atlas though, he can just throttle up and run to his buddies. that atlas cant do anything but limp along at 50-60 kph.

Yep, which is why light mechs definitely have a place for recon. If all of his buddies are in 11 other Jenners though, they'll have to face the 12 Atlases eventually, unless they want to concede the game.