196 replies to this topic

[Garth Erlam]

Mike Silva, on 08 May 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

So concerning PPCs.... have they announced exactly how they're going to make them more difficult to use at ranges under 90 meters? Because you can still use them at knife fighting range, it's just supposed to be more difficult to land a solid shot.

I just wanted to pop in here to ask this: At close range, a PPC does the same damage as two medium lasers, while creating almost double the heat. Would you consider it 'OP' if PPC's could be used at close range?

I ask, because the alpha of an Awesome is 33 (including the small laser), whereas the alpha of a Jenner D is 28.

Personally, I always saw PPC's as great at long range, good at medium range, and terrible at close range, because the damage to recycle time/heat generated is so low.

[Kudzu]

Garth Erlam, on 09 May 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

I just wanted to pop in here to ask this: At close range, a PPC does the same damage as two medium lasers, while creating almost double the heat. Would you consider it 'OP' if PPC's could be used at close range?

I ask, because the alpha of an Awesome is 33 (including the small laser), whereas the alpha of a Jenner D is 28.

Personally, I always saw PPC's as great at long range, good at medium range, and terrible at close range, because the damage to recycle time/heat generated is so low.

Well the big thing is how that damage is clustered-- 10 point damage hits will penetrate head armor (and most back armor) in one shot, whereas is takes two hits in the same spot from 5 point damage hits.

Nawiedzony, on 09 May 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

I just curious if any of TT guru stating than rages of weps etc works perfect in TT from years and will be same good in online game, play any from MW games. I just wondring becouse form me is obvious than online multiplayer games are not TT, so TT balance you can throw to trash guys, it not will work same way and it will be obvious when you meet few MW veterans on battlefield, it will realy fast show than few teoreticaly long range weps are useless ..... On movies i see ppl runing directly to close combat, i not see any tactic here, just runing and bumping arround ....

Most of the past MW games have only had a nodding acquaintance to actual BattleTech. PGI seems to want to bring it closer to what it's really about-- and that means getting up close and personal instead of poptarting and hitting people from across the map.

Edited by Kudzu, 09 May 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[Garth Erlam]

But you're kinda coin-tossing on that occuring - if you're fighting a Jenner, good luck trying to headshot them with a PPC at <20 metres. One thing to always keep in mind is that in past MechWarrior games, PPCs have sometimes had greatly increased damage vs. other weapons. Didn't the ML do something like 1.5 damage in MechWarrior 4?

[Mike Silva]

Garth Erlam, on 09 May 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

I just wanted to pop in here to ask this: At close range, a PPC does the same damage as two medium lasers, while creating almost double the heat. Would you consider it 'OP' if PPC's could be used at close range?

I ask, because the alpha of an Awesome is 33 (including the small laser), whereas the alpha of a Jenner D is 28.

Personally, I always saw PPC's as great at long range, good at medium range, and terrible at close range, because the damage to recycle time/heat generated is so low.

Well, in TT the person shooting the PPCs was disadvantaged in their to-hit roll when using a PPC at under 90 meters. From 0-30 meters it was +3 to the roll, from 31-60 it was +2, and from 61-90 it was +1.

So I don't believe that it would be OP to be able to use PPCs at close range, it just seems that perhaps there could be some way to make them more difficult to use. What that solution would look like, I can't exactly say, because I'm not sure what the devs are capable of doing with the tools they have on hand. Maybe the damage can simply be reduced on a per-range basis, maybe there's a way to decrease the accuracy to make them more difficult to aim, maybe they could simply mis-fire.

If nothing can be done I completely understand. I was just curious if minimum range issues were being considered and if so, what the end result might look like.

[Orzorn]

Garth Erlam, on 09 May 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

I just wanted to pop in here to ask this: At close range, a PPC does the same damage as two medium lasers, while creating almost double the heat. Would you consider it 'OP' if PPC's could be used at close range?

I ask, because the alpha of an Awesome is 33 (including the small laser), whereas the alpha of a Jenner D is 28.

Personally, I always saw PPC's as great at long range, good at medium range, and terrible at close range, because the damage to recycle time/heat generated is so low.

However, due to the fact that lasers are now damage-over-time weapons, the PPC will deliver all of its damage to whatever location it runs into first, whereas the laser must be kept on target to due its full damage.

Just a consideration.

[Aegis Kleais]

Ramien, on 08 May 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

My one problem with the LRM ranges as stated is the fact that pretty much any non-missile weapon gets to keep going beyond its maximum range, albeit with attenuated damage, while missiles just blow up at their max range. I wouldn't mind seeing missile drop off occurring after 640m, so an LRM-20 shooting at 700m may only deliver 10 missiles that even have a chance of hitting the target.

It's one of the pro/cons. The con is missiles have a instant drop-off in effectiveness at their max range. There are many properties of weapons, pros and cons alike, and this would just happen to be a con for missiles. (Let's see a Mech-carried ballistic/energy weapon track over terrain with indirect fire!)

[Kudzu]

Garth Erlam, on 09 May 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

But you're kinda coin-tossing on that occuring - if you're fighting a Jenner, good luck trying to headshot them with a PPC at <20 metres. One thing to always keep in mind is that in past MechWarrior games, PPCs have sometimes had greatly increased damage vs. other weapons. Didn't the ML do something like 1.5 damage in MechWarrior 4?

A PPC hit on a stock Jenner is going internal no matter where it hits. A hit to the head or arm will take it off in one shot.

Edited by Kudzu, 09 May 2012 - 08:57 AM.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

Personally I think it's nearly OK as it is now, but still, the gap in 400 meters can be a pain. I'd rather see LRM operating in 300 to 900 meters, increasing the maximum range, as it still requires good positioning and a heap of luck to strike a fast distant target with at least half of a salvo, and increasing the minimum penalty range, as in TT it's only a bit lower than med laser's distance, and also it will totally deal with the missile boating problem.
And what confuses me, we can see in the video that it doesn't take any effort to lock LRMs on target, they get locked on while the reticule wasn't even near the target.. is it meant to be so, or did I get something wrong?

Kudzu, on 09 May 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

A PPC hit on a stock Jenner is going internal no matter where it hits. A hit to the head or arm will take it off in one shot.

PPC in the head will NOT blow it off on any mech. It leaves 1 internal structure but something will surely stop working)
(Edit) My bad, some lights have less armor on the head, so yes, PPC in the head would be fatal to base Jenner config.

Edited by Duncan Jr Fischer, 09 May 2012 - 09:11 AM.

[warner2]

Yeach, on 08 May 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Changing the range of any weapons SHOULD result in the change of maximum speed of every mech.
33% increasing in range of LRM SHOULD result in 33% increase in speed of every mech.

There is a TT balance between range and mech speed.

I'm sorry but that really doesn't hold. This isn't TT, it's a video game, so I'm afraid TT rules are likely to be bent in order to create a good video game.

For example, what do you think will happen if say the missiles and other long range weapons, as some are predicting, don't ever get used, because they are ineffective? Ineffective because the game play has no long range or support roles, since it quickly turns into a knife fight, where long range weapons are pointless? Ineffective because you can't do enough damage at range before the knife fight begins? If the community decides the weapons are not viable, or not optimal, and everyone is packing AC20s/LBX/ML and the like, then will Piranha do nothing and leave a bunch of weapons unused, on the shelf? Given the relatively few weapons available in this time line, I would have thought they might rebalance things,and a prime candidate (not the only one) is guess what, increase the range of the longer range weapons without as you suggest the same increase in mech speed.

Me, I'm reserving judgement until I've played it, but you can bet your bottom dollar that TT rules will go out of the window to create a balanced video game, and right so.

[Garth Erlam]

Kudzu, on 09 May 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

A PPC hit on a stock Jenner is going internal no matter where it hits. A hit to the head or arm will take it off in one shot.

If you can hit it, sure. Ever played a Scout in TF2? It's a lot like that (for me.) Atlas' are a hell of a lot less intimidating when you're doing more than double their speed and staying out of their arc of fire. People, I find, are far too focussed on doing as much damage in a trigger pull as possible - everyone wants to alpha strike and take out a 'Mech. What I've found is it's the pilots who dodge, manoeuver, position, and skirmish that do the best.

That said, Scout is my most played class in TF2, and I regularly take on Heavies and Soldiers 1 v 1. While it's not the same game, I find a similar vein in MWO, where quick, manouevrable light 'Mechs absolutely run rings (literally) around Assault 'Mechs.

[Kudzu]

Garth Erlam, on 09 May 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

If you can hit it, sure. Ever played a Scout in TF2? It's a lot like that (for me.) Atlas' are a hell of a lot less intimidating when you're doing more than double their speed and staying out of their arc of fire. People, I find, are far too focussed on doing as much damage in a trigger pull as possible - everyone wants to alpha strike and take out a 'Mech. What I've found is it's the pilots who dodge, manoeuver, position, and skirmish that do the best.

That said, Scout is my most played class in TF2, and I regularly take on Heavies and Soldiers 1 v 1. While it's not the same game, I find a similar vein in MWO, where quick, manouevrable light 'Mechs absolutely run rings (literally) around Assault 'Mechs.

I'm a scout player in most games as well (and will be here as soon as you are kind enough to let me get my greedy mitts on your game), and I know speed is life... but all it takes is one lucky shot or enemy reinforcements showing up at the wrong time and you go down hard.

But again, the whole point is larger damage weapons do need serious drawbacks to keep things in line and the magical point where that begins, at least in the TT, is at the 10 point mark.

[Dihm]

I play Medic, what does MWO have for MEEEE!?

Garth, I demand you put in mobile repair mechs for people like me to pilot, and we can shoot nanite-beams at friendly mechs to heal their damage.

I'll just chime in that the way LRMs work with the locking utilizing scouts is AWESOME. I hated LRMs in MW4 and this system is making me drool. The fact that you can be effective at long range (when working with a team) without having to pixel hunt (heaven forbid that your crosshair stray, or you have to start over) is making me drool for the Catapult even more.

Edited by Dihm, 09 May 2012 - 09:16 AM.

[warner2]

Garth Erlam, on 09 May 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

But you're kinda coin-tossing on that occuring - if you're fighting a Jenner, good luck trying to headshot them with a PPC at <20 metres. One thing to always keep in mind is that in past MechWarrior games, PPCs have sometimes had greatly increased damage vs. other weapons. Didn't the ML do something like 1.5 damage in MechWarrior 4?

Are you sure that it wasn't the other way around, that the ML had reduced damage?

[AC]

warner__, on 09 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

I'm sorry but that really doesn't hold. This isn't TT, it's a video game, so I'm afraid TT rules are likely to be bent in order to create a good video game.

For example, what do you think will happen if say the missiles and other long range weapons, as some are predicting, don't ever get used, because they are ineffective? Ineffective because the game play has no long range or support roles, since it quickly turns into a knife fight, where long range weapons are pointless? Ineffective because you can't do enough damage at range before the knife fight begins? If the community decides the weapons are not viable, or not optimal, and everyone is packing AC20s/LBX/ML and the like, then will Piranha do nothing and leave a bunch of weapons unused, on the shelf? Given the relatively few weapons available in this time line, I would have thought they might rebalance things,and a prime candidate (not the only one) is guess what, increase the range of the longer range weapons without as you suggest the same increase in mech speed.

Me, I'm reserving judgement until I've played it, but you can bet your bottom dollar that TT rules will go out of the window to create a balanced video game, and right so.

Good post

I personally am sick of the TableTop guys pounding the TT rules like its the Bible. I play Megamech and enjoy that game for what it is, but I also play MW and enjoy that game as well. They are both games and each needs its own rules and flavor. You can't translate a board game to the computer without making changes. The devs know the intent of these weapons, and that is what should be used to balance them. They shouldn't be ported from a board game to a video game with their litteral specs from the board game. They were balanced for the board game using the environment of the board game. Video games add additional complexities, while getting rid of others. For example, the board game uses dice, while the video game simply has human error. The video game has weapon recycle time, where the board game didn't need to consider that aspect as everything was turn based.

Medium Lasers are said to be the primary weapons of this era. Do they need to do 5 damage and go 270 meters? No... but they should feel like the primary weapon of this era. Likewise LRM's should feel like long range missiles. Maybe the 630meter range feels long in this game....maybe it doesn't. None of us will know until we play it.

[Virtusx]

Garth Erlam, on 09 May 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

I just wanted to pop in here to ask this: At close range, a PPC does the same damage as two medium lasers, while creating almost double the heat. Would you consider it 'OP' if PPC's could be used at close range?

I ask, because the alpha of an Awesome is 33 (including the small laser), whereas the alpha of a Jenner D is 28.

Personally, I always saw PPC's as great at long range, good at medium range, and terrible at close range, because the damage to recycle time/heat generated is so low.

I know in the TT rules there is an advantage to PPC's over medium lasers. Longer range means easier to hit, when mediums are at long range PPC's are at medium range and when you hit it does 10 to one location which can be good and bad. When the medium lasers got to close range the PPC lost some of it advantage and became a disadvantage. So in the end I agree but would say great at long and medium and terrible at close.

[Vollstrecker]

Really, the beauty of a video game is that if the ranges turn out to be problematic, it can be patched. They're trying to stay true to the TT where they can, if it doesn't work out, it can be fixed. Simple as that.

It's also worth nothing that the Jenner moves roughly 33m a second at a full run, while a Catapult backing up at full speed moves at 12m a second. That's a positive gain of 21m per second. To close from Long-Range to Minimum-Range at full speed, a Jenner would be exposed to LRM fire for 21.9 seconds. That's enough time to flay all their armor from them, on the fastest mech released as of yet.

I personally don't think that the range is an issue. If the Jenner is using cover and dodging on their approach, all the range in the world will make little difference.

[Ursus_Spiritus]

I have a question regarding LRMs.

are we going to be able to indirect them with out LOS, ie fire with out having a target lock and or, say I have a jump capable mech, I hit the jets, launch while airborne over a ridge/hill/ building?

Granted they would not be guided but still capable of damage?


Also to the PPC vs Med Laser discussion.

at range for either weapon to hit, would you want 3-4-5 chances at 5 pt hit locations or 1-2-3 10pt hit chances?

Beyond the min range of teh PPC, but with in the long range of the ML.

yes there is a 10pt difference in max damage but assuming not 100% hit rate 100% of the time. so say 3Med which is 15 points, but three locations, or 2 10pt hits at two locations?

my understanding is that LRMs are meant as mentioned to just thin out armor till units get with in range of direct fire weapons where the real damage is. If LRMS had 1kM range in TT. They would have to use bigger map sheets unless LOS came into play.

The idea is giant mechanical forms dueling with each other and duels are often with in a short/med range, unless of course it becomes melee.

Though the support mechs are just that, fire support for other units and meant to be at range but them you have the Arrow IV, Long Tom and off map arty.

Look at the one version of the Archer with LRM-15s, and Lrg lasers and the sister versions.

ARC-2K
2 LRM-15
2 Large Lasers

ARC-4M - Star League tech
2 LRM-20 Artemis IV
4 Medium Lasers, 2(FWD) 2(Rear)

ARC-2Rb - Star League tech
2 LRM-20s Artemis IV & CASE.

ARC-2R © - (not relevant at this time)

ARC-2S -
2 LRM-15
2 SRM-4

ARC-2W
2 SRM-4
2 LRM-20

Edited by 8100d 5p4tt3r, 09 May 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[warner2]

Vollstrecker, on 09 May 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Really, the beauty of a video game is that if the ranges turn out to be problematic, it can be patched. They're trying to stay true to the TT where they can, if it doesn't work out, it can be fixed. Simple as that.

This I agree with, using TT as a base to start from.

Vollstrecker, on 09 May 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

I personally don't think that the range is an issue. If the Jenner is using cover and dodging on their approach, all the range in the world will make little difference.

This I don't agree with, since if it's a map with a lot of cover you would expect to find it difficult to bring you're range weapons to bear, you would expect short/medium weapons to be the choice there. That isn't really the issue people are raising. The issue, if there is even one, would be where even on a more open map, say a desert or prairie, or an arctic map, long range weapons are still useless, where in-fact you would expect them to trump short/medium range weapons as they can be easily be brought to bear.

[Mchawkeye]

Kudzu, on 09 May 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Actually, 1 MP = 10.8 KPH, so yes, the TT range/speed applies.

Hmmm...I still don't accept it. the TT only allows you to fire once within your turn, at a given specific moment during your movement (can you move-fire-move? can't remember, it's been a while) but even then, over the course of that turn, your range at the point of you firing the trigger doesn't alter; neither you not the target. in the video game, which has to be treated differently, as it's a video game, you could (theoretically) have the trigger pulled permanently; you could fire any weapon at any point at any range, never mind the fact that, since this isn't turn based, the opposition movement is much more instant as is yours.
which is to say, weapon balancing range vs speed is better altered though play testing rather than a direct translation from the TT.

you can attribute size and speeds to anything on the table top, but if it wasn't an after thought or such, would you really have chosen a random number like 10.8kph? reeks of retcon, or, like Matchbox plastic kits, at least getting a scale to fit the box, so to speak.

[Buzz43]

I actually took the time and read this entire topic. Both sides seem to have good reasons and arguments for their side. I just want to give you all a story of what I have seen while playing this amazing franchise.

I was big into ISW (inner Sphere Wars). This game had a great premise, but it was never realized due to infighting. It used NetMech4 as the engine. Basically MW4 just with higher heat. When you had UAC/2's, LBX AC-2's, LRM's that could go 1000m, it basically was one team hid on one ridge, the opposing team on another and you tried to roll up and down and get shots off. That was the most boring thing in the world. The best part was in the last two minutes of the match when everybody tried to get shots off to win. I also saw this in NBT HC. I saw it to a lesser degree ( maybe 70% of the time compared to 95% of the time in ISW.)

I think with the reduced ranges the game could be a lot more interesting and fun. I would love to use medium lasers and A/C-10's in a battle. I would have to say I am very much looking forward to playing this game where maneuver warfare and tactics are more important than range and ridges.

The cycle times for the LRM's? Just make them even and fair.

I like where the game appears to be going. Actual mech battles, not snipe and jumping fests.