339 replies to this topic

[Fresh Meat]

Yoseful Mallad, on 10 May 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

First off... If the DEVS want to merge this thread with another please do. I wanted to bring up a point but was not willing to hunt down all the posts in other threads to make my point.


Ok... Soooo many are complaining about ranges of weapons in the game and that it seems like this is going to be a close up in your face slug battle type of game. Someone even complained about the LRMs only having a range of 630 meters. This is not MW games of the past where range has no meaning. This is going to be a thinking mans MW game and the DEVS have got the ranges right for a change. You cry about wanting tactics... Well you got it. Being able to snipe from the other end of the board is hardly tactical. Leave the extreme long range to you LONG TOM artillery units lol. Back to the crying over the LRM range. Again, the DEVS got it right. In classic table top 1 hex is 30 meters for range. LRMs have a max range of 21 hexes. 21 hexes by 30 meters is... Do the math... 630 meters. That's dead on with the game guys.

Thinking man's game = "close up in your face slug battle type of game"

This is just another self righteous rant about what do you know, TT.

Edited by Fresh_Meat, 10 May 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[Waelsleaht]

Yoseful Mallad, on 10 May 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

First off... If the DEVS want to merge this thread with another please do. I wanted to bring up a point but was not willing to hunt down all the posts in other threads to make my point.


Ok... Soooo many are complaining about ranges of weapons in the game and that it seems like this is going to be a close up in your face slug battle type of game. Someone even complained about the LRMs only having a range of 630 meters. This is not MW games of the past where range has no meaning. This is going to be a thinking mans MW game and the DEVS have got the ranges right for a change. You cry about wanting tactics... Well you got it. Being able to snipe from the other end of the board is hardly tactical. Leave the extreme long range to you LONG TOM artillery units lol. Back to the crying over the LRM range. Again, the DEVS got it right. In classic table top 1 hex is 30 meters for range. LRMs have a max range of 21 hexes. 21 hexes by 30 meters is... Do the math... 630 meters. That's dead on with the game guys.

Like I said here http://mwomercs.com/...551#entry238551 Range is limited for a reason.
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."

[PANZERBUNNY]

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

Like I said here http://mwomercs.com/...551#entry238551 Range is limited for a reason.
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."

...you forgot to add...under optimal conditions.

Do those railguns use satellites in orbit to track targets? Do the targets need to be painted with a laser? What about weather?

Now...shove one on a dirty, rocking giant hulk of armour being bashed around by incoming fire, trying to pay attention to the heatsinks and temp rising, your lance mates yelling and dying through your comset......hell, I think most mechwarriors pay attention to where there damn feet are landing over to a mech that is showing a bit of his torso 2 miles away.

You can see how weapons that SHOULD have a very long range are reduced. They can't model every facet of the battlefield, but a little suspension of disbelief about your capabilities needs to taken in to consideration.

All hail the runt runners and scout laser boats!

[Garth Erlam]

neodym, on 10 May 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

I totally disagree with OP,tabletop is tabletop and pc game is pc game........ I was shooting LRM at 1000meters all those years in MW2,MW3 and MW4

I am dissapointed that LRM cant be fired without lock on,under 200meters with max range of 640 meters witch is more than 33% decrease from previous games with bad accurancy,ammo problems and not impressive damage

like I am dissapointed,yeah funk me who I am just little no one but its like that and thats the way it is,MW3 nailed it.... the weapons behaviour,dmg,visuals,feel were spot on,maybe I was too optimistic that someone can 14 years later stand up to that standard...

Max range of the LRM in Mech3 was 800 metres.

[Ravager AI]

Garth Erlam, on 10 May 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Max range of the LRM in Mech3 was 800 metres.

Lulz! Nice ninja move there Garth. ^.^

EDIT: As in actually knowing this.

Edited by Ravager AI, 10 May 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[Mike Silva]

I support the decisions of, and defer to the judgement of the developers. I would prefer they stay close to the original rules of the game, but will happily accept certain tweaks to ensure proper game-play balance.

My faith in the developers comes from their expressed desire to follow the table-top rules as much as is feasible.

Edited by Mike Silva, 10 May 2012 - 02:22 PM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

I don't know why people are fascinated with the want and desire for their dedicated long range weaponry being able to shoot someone right in front of them.

Their tracking systems obviously don't work that way.

I guess people want to be able to do EVERYTHING in one mech with no drawbacks.

[SuomiWarder]

I'm not sweating it because everyone plays with the same weapons and "targeting gear". There will be an effective long, medium and short range that people discover based on what they can hit. Even in a 'Mech brawl there are usually a few guys standing around outside the scrum "sniping" at like 400 meters away.

I can see that players who enjoy standing on a hill 1,200 meters away and zooming in on an enemy to pop them while out of return fire range may become unhappy. Pop tarters will be dismayed mainly because they will be locked inside their cockpits and can't magically look over the obstacle they are using for cover.

The meaximum range of any weapon system is ultimately unimportant. What matters is the ratio of different weapon system ranges in comparison to each other, and the range of weapons compared to the environments we will be fighting in. One can argue if TT or MW2/MW3/MW4 ranges are better or worse, but that ignores the difference in the game battlefield available.

At least the TT rules have decades of play testing regarding the ratio between weapon type ranges. It's a good enough place to start.

[RickDiasPK]

Creed Buhallin, on 10 May 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

all the way back to the text-based MU*s of the early-mid 90s. That was realtime, and did perfectly fine with existent ranges, because the rest of the game worked.

In-joke response: Only game I know where you spend 5 hours marching, then spot a single UrbanMech and have your commander declare, "bog whiffed 13s rtb", so you go marching home for fear of getting into a fight if you stick around.

Serious reply: I don't know if I'd hold them up as examples of ranges working well, though the funny part is my complaint stems from map design. Most of the maps I ever saw for that format were like... 400x400-ish, mostly open plains. It was kind of a Griffin-fest if I remember properly. Had some interesting ideas, but real time movement meant you couldn't get high-speed long-range attackers to commit to bad moves under mistaken info. They'd usually just safely plink at a distance and dance around all day, somewhat different to how movement works in the turn-based board game.

Possible I was just playing on bad servers though.

[Joe Mallad]

I just don't get it. Those that want their PPCs and other weapons like LRMs to be super weapons that fire extreme distance, this is NOT based off of past MW video games. And the weapon ranges have not been nerfed. They are keeping to the rules of classic table top. How hard is that to understand? This is a totally new video game that is based more on stratigy and NOT just shooting from across the whole map.

[Famous]

Yoseful- I think what it is coming down to is that there is a group that views LRMs as a primary damage dealer and a group that sees them as a supporting weapon.

The group that views the LRMs as a primary weapon want the range extended because they expect to be dropping enemy 'Mechs with only their LRMs. I can see where they are coming from, even though I disagree with them.

The group that sees the LRMs as a supporting weapon are happy with the range because they expect to be advancing with the rest of the lance and using the LRMs to weaken the enemy before the mid-range and brawler 'Mechs move in to clean house. IMO this is what the LRMs were intended to be, a weapon that softens the enemy up for engagement by the rest of the lance.

[Rear Admiral]

Famous, on 10 May 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Yoseful- I think what it is coming down to is that there is a group that views LRMs as a primary damage dealer and a group that sees them as a supporting weapon.

The group that views the LRMs as a primary weapon want the range extended because they expect to be dropping enemy 'Mechs with only their LRMs. I can see where they are coming from, even though I disagree with them.

The group that sees the LRMs as a supporting weapon are happy with the range because they expect to be advancing with the rest of the lance and using the LRMs to weaken the enemy before the mid-range and brawler 'Mechs move in to clean house. IMO this is what the LRMs were intended to be, a weapon that softens the enemy up for engagement by the rest of the lance.

I agree with this. I always found LRMs and SRMs to be excellent crit seekers as well (along w/ any weapon that fires clusters-lbx, i'm lookin at you). Fire them to soften up a mech, then switch to direct fire stuff, then unload more missiles to blanket the mech in hits, raising your chances to hit a 'hole' and score a critical.

[Joe Mallad]

Famous, on 10 May 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Yoseful- I think what it is coming down to is that there is a group that views LRMs as a primary damage dealer and a group that sees them as a supporting weapon.

The group that views the LRMs as a primary weapon want the range extended because they expect to be dropping enemy 'Mechs with only their LRMs. I can see where they are coming from, even though I disagree with them.

The group that sees the LRMs as a supporting weapon are happy with the range because they expect to be advancing with the rest of the lance and using the LRMs to weaken the enemy before the mid-range and brawler 'Mechs move in to clean house. IMO this is what the LRMs were intended to be, a weapon that softens the enemy up for engagement by the rest of the lance.

While the LRM if enough are used, can and will do a lot of damage... the LRM (in my opinion) can effectively be used as a true power punch and or a great support weapon to soften up the enemy for your heavier lance mates to finish the enemy off.

[Insidious Johnson]

Yoseful Mallad, on 10 May 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

I just don't get it. Those that want their PPCs and other weapons like LRMs to be super weapons that fire extreme distance, this is NOT based off of past MW video games. And the weapon ranges have not been nerfed. They are keeping to the rules of classic table top. How hard is that to understand? This is a totally new video game that is based more on stratigy and NOT just shooting from across the whole map.

We must un-Microsoft what has been Microsoft'd. There was too much nominal 'creative license' to modify previous titles according to playstyles that were thought to sell well. We all know that most of what MS touches procedes directly to fail... the OS which cannot be named. MW4 was obviously the most screwed up in the franchise but also brought in the most recent crop of faithful. So, count your mixed blessings.

[Belisarius1]

So... cloning tabletop values (which the creators of the tabletop game have explicitly stated were designed to simply keep the board small enough to be used in a living room) into a completely different medium automatically makes for a "thinking man's game"?

I'm glad I don't live on whatever planet you come from.

I'm also very glad to see at least some people are realising how crippling this will be to tactical play.

[Mike Silva]

From watching videos the main thing I don't like about LRMs is that it looks like they never miss, but maybe I'm not seeing exactly how they work. It seems like it doesn't take much, or even line of sight to get a lock. But I also don't understand how the "spotting" mechanics are going to be put to work.

[Insidious Johnson]

Belisarius†, on 10 May 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

So... cloning tabletop values (which the creators of the tabletop game have explicitly stated were designed to simply keep the board small enough to be used in a living room) into a completely different medium automatically makes for a "thinking man's game"?

I'm glad I don't live on whatever planet you come from.

I'm also very glad to see at least some people are realising how crippling this will be to tactical play.

If by tactical play you mean two teams parked 900m from each other jump sniping from cover in 3rd person view, then yes, crippled it will be. Other than that, it opens up a whole realm of tactics which you have not seen, nor which have yet occurred to you. That does not mean they are not readily apparent to others nor that they lack tactical value to all others besides yourself. The pace of combat itself is not a determining factor as to the tactical content contained therein.

Edited by Insidious Johnson, 10 May 2012 - 04:48 PM.

[Aelos03]

Yoseful Mallad, on 10 May 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

First off... If the DEVS want to merge this thread with another please do. I wanted to bring up a point but was not willing to hunt down all the posts in other threads to make my point.


Ok... Soooo many are complaining about ranges of weapons in the game and that it seems like this is going to be a close up in your face slug battle type of game. Someone even complained about the LRMs only having a range of 630 meters. This is not MW games of the past where range has no meaning. This is going to be a thinking mans MW game and the DEVS have got the ranges right for a change. You cry about wanting tactics... Well you got it. Being able to snipe from the other end of the board is hardly tactical. Leave the extreme long range to you LONG TOM artillery units lol. Back to the crying over the LRM range. Again, the DEVS got it right. In classic table top 1 hex is 30 meters for range. LRMs have a max range of 21 hexes. 21 hexes by 30 meters is... Do the math... 630 meters. That's dead on with the game guys.

if this is true then why ppc have longer range them lrm.

[The Cheese]

You lost me at "lol".

Also, this thinly veiled MW vs TT thread should be closed. We all know that they're not the same thing, no matter how closely the numbers match up. The games are two completely different things, even if they are based in the same universe.

There will be balancing performed on the numbers as the game is tested by players. What appears to be too short of a range now may very well be lengthened if it turns out that it really is inadequate, or the converse may happen. Weapons may have their stats changed, jump jet physics may be modified, water's heat dispersal properties may be increased or decreased, etc, etc. These things happen to give us the best gaming experience possible. I am not pro-TT or pro-MW. I am pro-fun. I applaud the fact that the devs are trying to keep to the base material and hope they can do it well, but we've all got to accept that some of those figures just won't work well with a simulation.

Point is, quit your damn whinging. The die hard TT fanatics are just as bad as the die hard MW fanatics. The devs will never make everyone happy, so they will build the game around a good mech combat experience. Accept that and enjoy the game.

[Mike Silva]

The Cheese, on 10 May 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

You lost me at "lol".

Also, this thinly veiled MW vs TT thread should be closed. We all know that they're not the same thing, no matter how closely the numbers match up. The games are two completely different things, even if they are based in the same universe.

There will be balancing performed on the numbers as the game is tested by players. What appears to be too short of a range now may very well be lengthened if it turns out that it really is inadequate, or the converse may happen. Weapons may have their stats changed, jump jet physics may be modified, water's heat dispersal properties may be increased or decreased, etc, etc. These things happen to give us the best gaming experience possible. I am not pro-TT or pro-MW. I am pro-fun. I applaud the fact that the devs are trying to keep to the base material and hope they can do it well, but we've all got to accept that some of those figures just won't work well with a simulation.

Point is, quit your damn whinging. The die hard TT fanatics are just as bad as the die hard MW fanatics. The devs will never make everyone happy, so they will build the game around a good mech combat experience. Accept that and enjoy the game.

I think most of us accept this. But to ask right up front that LRM ranges be increased by 50% to 100% is just ridiculous.