118 replies to this topic

[Morang]

One more suggestion. In one of the videos I saw mech shutdown from overheating. When it happens, the mech freezes with torso somewhat canted to the side. On the inside view it's seen that the cockpit canopy is canted too, but the view of the mechwarrrior inside it remains level - as if the seat is not fixed inside the cockpit. Looks unnatural. I'm talking about 2:18 of the preview video, where the Atlas shuts down after laser exchange with Jenner.

[AlanEsh]

Kudzu, on 10 May 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Actually, if you balance out the teams it won't be that bad, especially since they're making maps that will negate a lot of the clans range advantage.

I'm not convinced we're going to see "all IS vs all clan" teams in PUG matches. I'm also not convinced clan tech weapons and equipment are going to stay locked to clan chassis -- I'm anticipating this gear will find its way to the IS chassis as well via the mech lab.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Pvt Dancer, on 10 May 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

I will point out that you started this on a thread fretting about ranges of LRMs that it might disrupt delicate competitive league play for competitive players. As you can see by the excellent graph done above (again, good job Aegis), if kept at TT based ranges, LRMs are fine.

I /will/ stick to my point about 'competitive players', or as others have called 'min-maxers' and 'power gamers'... it is a general term after all. I played CAL back in the day, I was an admin on FPS game servers, I have seen cheaters and exploits and heard all of the excuses. I have also beta tested /several/ MMOs and know what kind of feed back the Devs are looking for... honest feed back, even if it 'hurts' you to report it.

Sure, it is a generalization, not all of them are that bad. I don't know them personally, and I have stated I have friends like them. They /know/ who they are and they can find others like themselves and can tell the difference between 'pubbers' and 'leaguers'. But they also tend to lose sight of the game and instead focus on how to make themselves better and more 'competitive', specially in the beta phase.

Are they here to help beta test a game (when it reaches that point) to make the game better, or to learn the maps and mechs to make themselves better for when release comes around?

Priorities are priorities, so I have to really question the priorities of self-proclaimed 'competitive' players. After beta test is over... man, knock yourselves out with league play and all of that. /That/ is the time and the place for it. We can deal with the grand scope then of what battles have to be done to take what planets, when we learn more about that aspect of the game. I played Planetside and WWIIOnline and other 'grand tactic' games. I know fully well that a good organization of a fraction can do to help enhance game play. I have also seen the bad side of it... the petty dictators, blow hards, and back-room politicing (kinda reminds me of what the House Steiner military organization is suppose to be ).

Without those competitive "exploiters" around in the beta, you wont truly know what is broken, because without those power gamers pushing the current mechanics to the limit, you'll be stuck with the table top mix match weapons crowd.

Both sides have their uses, and i think your assessment is off the competitive do not up and leave because their favorite toy got fixed, they pick up the next broken item in the line, no game has ever achieved perfect balance and MWO will be no different.

[wpmaura]

what are you taking how far do you want the range of LRMs he is engaging behind a hill using indirect fire. and at about 300m in a valley. I think the ranges are fine.

[Fear Radick]

Waelsleaht, on 10 May 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Lets just say this.
Our technology level right now we can shoot **** with artilery that can easily go on a mech if we had one now for well out of visual range even on a perfectly smooth surface. The USN (wich im in) is 10 years away or less from Rail guns on their Ships. Guess how far they can shoot that? http://gizmodo.com/3...hes-at-5640-mph
" a combat-ready rail gun would be able to fire Mach 5 projectiles over 200 miles with pinpoint accuracy, hitting 5 meter targets."

If we fast forward to 3050 do you really see our technology being limited to even only 1000 meters? Its a game in a non existant world. By that time if humanity still exists and uses mechs I gurante we will have much farther engadgments. And close fighting (less than 5000 meters) would only take place due to not haveing orbital guns and in verry terrain sensetive areas like cities and canyons. Otherwise no fighting would occure over open terrain. If I want a sniper game id play a FPS not a mech sim. Is it kinda rediculous? Yes but at least its not as real as it should be reaching 200miles away with a spotter and nailing someone.

In the Battletech history, most advanced weapon systems, and technology was lost during the succession wars, which is why you can't compare today's technology level, and it's advancement to that in battletech. And the point in time in which this game is set, engineers are only just beginning to fully understand the weapon tech. That's why when the clans do show up later on, the IS weapons are so greatly out matched.

[Pvt Dancer]

DV^McKenna, on 11 May 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

Without those competitive "exploiters" around in the beta, you wont truly know what is broken, because without those power gamers pushing the current mechanics to the limit, you'll be stuck with the table top mix match weapons crowd.

Both sides have their uses, and i think your assessment is off the competitive do not up and leave because their favorite toy got fixed, they pick up the next broken item in the line, no game has ever achieved perfect balance and MWO will be no different.

Surily, you jest. Re-read what you posted, carefully... your saying /only/ 'exploiters' can find those flaws, but then you turn around and say no game is balanced. So those 'exploiters' are failing to help balance those games apparently? They haven't helped yet, so they are not going to start helping now... it is against their nature to share their advantage or report it. I am sure there are a few out there who are above that, but most are not.

I feel that anyone who takes testing seriously can do the job just fine. It does not take a 'exploiter' to push boundries, anyone can do it.

[Waelsleaht]

PANZERBUNNY, on 10 May 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Are you really trying to compare massive naval railguns to a railgun mounted on a tank or mech? Sorry, but the battelfields those different pieces of hardware are used on and how they are used are TOTALLY different.

That's like comparing the ranges of a Mortar on the front lines and Arty back in the rear or a trooper with a rifle in a bell tower with clear LOS and a trooper on the ground having to deal with smoke, incoming fire, moving around, disoriented. I could go on.

The battelfield and environment dictates the optima usefull range of a weapon, NOT how far it was designed to fire.

I read somewhere the exacts but I cant find them now.
Basically tho a Gauss rifle on a mech is 100times or more stronger than the big naval one here. Also I ask you this. How big were computers when they began? A full room. How powerful? alot less than even a cell phone today. By 3050 do you see us not being able to make one more powerfull more percice and much smaller? small enough to fit on a mech?

Basically what im saying is by that time with how technology moves would a rail gun small enough on a mech with well over 100times the capability really only reach 1000 meters? let alone acuratly? My comparison is no where near what you are saying. Unless of corse im comparing a mortar on the front lines in our day to artilery in 3050. In fact that would be backwards even still. because artilery today is the mortar of 3050.

Edited by Waelsleaht, 11 May 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[OnLashoc]

Akane Yashiro, on 10 May 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

I like the 'short' ranges.

They impact the tactics and make maneuver more important. Short ranges mean that when you get flanked your lance mates need to move to add supporting fire.

Short ranges mean that you can play the range game with assualts. A lone lrm 20 is much less scary than the full weapon load out of an atlas. Stay more than 270 meters away and you will live much longer than if you brave the AC20 4 med lasers and srm 6.

Short ranges let you retreat from unwinnable fights.

Short range means tactics team work and maneuver carry the day. Longer ranges mean that stealth and cover are more important.

As opposed to Long Range you're just stuck in mud?

This is too funny God I can't wait till this game comes out!

[Godzilla Enthusiast]

OnLashoc, on 11 May 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

As opposed to Long Range you're just stuck in mud?

This is too funny God I can't wait till this game comes out!

Nope but the longer the range the less maneuver matters. Longer range favors heavier better armored mechs and devalues speed. If I try to flank you and all it means is that your lancemates simply turn thier torso and immediately shoot me then flanking is less valued. If the have to turn and move towards me flanking is a bigger deal.

Really it is a matter of finding the right balance. Once we get the beta we can see how it feels perhaps ranges are too short. Maybe they work fine as they are.

When someone says long you really have to ask long compared to what.

[Jonas]

I would assume ( I know assuming makes an *** out of you and me ) with that said, smaller maps for show and tell. There will be larger ones for bigger matches and I think if I was trying to show game play I would want to use huge maps that would take for ever to get across. I remember the base TT game wasn't much more than 2 x 2 ft or 2 x 1.5 ft of course you could add more maps or I built a lot of them that took up large sheets of plywood.

Anyway the whole wait and see approach is in order we still have ruffly 90 days of summer to go.

[GaussDragon]

DV^McKenna, on 11 May 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

Without those competitive "exploiters" around in the beta, you wont truly know what is broken, because without those power gamers pushing the current mechanics to the limit, you'll be stuck with the table top mix match weapons crowd.

Both sides have their uses, and i think your assessment is off the competitive do not up and leave because their favorite toy got fixed, they pick up the next broken item in the line, no game has ever achieved perfect balance and MWO will be no different.

This man gets it. Personally, I'd love the chance to break the crap out of the game so that when it goes live, it's balanced. I want all the weapons to have some use so that this game is interesting. I loved MW4 but handful of weapons basically made the other 95% more or less useless. I don't want that, I don't think anyone wants that.

[trycksh0t]

Mr Styx, on 10 May 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

ppc is 800m erppc was 900 lrms 650??? lol

Ummm..not so much.

PPC = 18 hexes x 30m per hex = 540m
ER PPC = 23 hexes x 30m per hex = 690m
LRMs = 21 hexes x 30m per hex = 630m

[Cur]

I find it kinda funny how everyone is judging the video...

You do realise that they wernt actualy, u know, playing playing in the video. It was purely to show off the game engine, movments, weapons, to show progress.

Diddnt notice the hunchback that kept shutting down? like he diddnt give a flying freebirth about his heat. Also notice how they circled eachother, kept switching targets with no real care for priorities?


IE - THE VIDEO WAS TO PURELY SHOW OFF THE GAME. its still in development, probably early alpha. Quit getting your panties in a knot untill its beta time and you can play the game for yourself

[ak12546]

small maps are for close quarters action!

[Talon Thorn]

Pvt Dancer, on 10 May 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

I have been waiting 25 years for a real battletech game, not some wanna-be Clan laser orgy.

I dunno man there were tons of hot chicks at the last wanna-be Clan laser orgy I went to...might be worth a look.

[Waelsleaht]

Waelsleaht, on 11 May 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

I read somewhere the exacts but I cant find them now.
Basically tho a Gauss rifle on a mech is 100times or more stronger than the big naval one here. Also I ask you this. How big were computers when they began? A full room. How powerful? alot less than even a cell phone today. By 3050 do you see us not being able to make one more powerfull more percice and much smaller? small enough to fit on a mech?

Basically what im saying is by that time with how technology moves would a rail gun small enough on a mech with well over 100times the capability really only reach 1000 meters? let alone acuratly? My comparison is no where near what you are saying. Unless of corse im comparing a mortar on the front lines in our day to artilery in 3050. In fact that would be backwards even still. because artilery today is the mortar of 3050.

US Navy Railgun fires a 8kg round at a bit over Mach 7. That is about 35MJ of power, or 35 million joules of kinetic energy. On the other hand, the Heavy Gauss Rifle fires a 250kg round at around Mach 9. That is 1125MJ of kinetic energy.
so that is 3.1% the power. So should that gausss reach much farther? I think so.

Edited by Waelsleaht, 12 May 2012 - 06:45 PM.

[trycksh0t]

Waelsleaht, on 12 May 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

US Navy Railgun fires a 8kg round at a bit over Mach 7. That is about 35MJ of power, or 35 million joules of kinetic energy. On the other hand, the Heavy Gauss Rifle fires a 250kg round at around Mach 9. That is 1125MJ of kinetic energy.
so that is 3.1% the power. So should that gausss reach much farther? I think so.

I'm curious where you found that a Heavy Gauss fires at Mach 9, I don't recall coming across that anywhere. Also, the Heavy Gauss round would be ~ 226.8 Kilograms, not quite 250. Oh, and the most recent test in the Navy's railgun program used a 40 lb (18 kg) projectile, not 8.

Now, that being said, bringing real world physics into a fictional world, created solely for entertainment reasons, is never a good idea, as it hardly works out. For example:

If a Heavy Gauss does in fact fire a 226.8 kg projectile at Mach 9, and hits a stationary Atlas (for example), the Atlas is...well toast. That slug is going to have roughly 1,063 mj of kinetic energy, roughly equivalent to the energy released by 500lbs of conventional high explosives.

For further reference of what that amount of energy can do, here's 500 lbs of TNT going off.

Edited by trycksh0t, 12 May 2012 - 11:32 PM.

[Fear Radick]

I think some people have failed to realise that this is a video game, and although some of the technology in the game is based on reality, it is in fact all science fiction and therefore the abilities and physics of these weapons have little to do with what may actually be true in the real world. We also have to realise that the canon of this game was based in the 80's before a lot of the technology we are comparing to even really existed in any useful manner.

[Solis Obscuri]

Garth Erlam, on 10 May 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Artillery right now can fire, what 7 miles away? Sure we could add that, and how fun would that be?

Hey, c'mon, we can lob nuclear warheads on Tomahawk cruise missiles, what, 250 miles at least? How's that for fun, LoLsubmarine can just nuke the 'mech regiment's Overlord right on the LZ before it can unload!

Aegis Kleais™, on 10 May 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Just to help people visualize the ranges IF PGI CHOOSES TO KEEP THE VALUES FROM TT...

Yet another Aegis-created worthless visual... enjoy!

Nice one! Graphical scale really lets me see why some folks are big fans of the AC/2.

Though I'm still not one of 'em.