339 replies to this topic

[Pale Rider 010]

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.

So basically, if you want tactics, you have tactics, as long as those tactics are all close range. You don't get to have long range weapons because the devs aren't going to give you long range weapons.

I'm sorry but the only actual points you've made are that TT values put max LRM range at 630 meters (And TT rules are holy and we must never change them or you'll ruin everything!), and that YOU think fighting at long range is "Hardly tactical." I just don't see how having a long range option isn't tactical. I understand it may not be desirable to turn the game into one big sniper fight, but surely the answer isn't "Just make everything close range."

Ranges in the TT rules, particularly of long range weapons, were limited so that TT games didn't have to fill an entire room. We do not have that limitation now. Please, give me one good, satisfying reason why a "Long range missile" should have a shorter effective range than today's M-16 rifle (800m to hit an area target, like a mech). Without invoking the holy law of "It's in TT so it cannot be changed," why shouldn't there be any long range weapons?

Today, an M1A1 Abrams tank carries a 120mm cannon with an effective range of 4000 meters. http://en.wikipedia....tall_120_mm_gun That is more than SIX TIMES the range of a "Long Range Missile."

Calling it a Long Range Missile, when it can only reach out to 630m, is both absurd and immersion breaking. Saying that having a long range option is not tactical is more absurd still. And finally, the TT rules and values are NOT holy scripture, nor are they perfect. I need to hear a better reason than "It was that way in TT" before I'll accept that in the future, long range weapons don't have the reach of today's infantry rifles.

[wolf74]

Ok some of us want longer ranges & some of us want CBT Ranges. Well the is a one book that can give you both. MaxTech Book FASA #1700 or Fan Pro #35013

Most of the CBT weapons got a 4th range Bracket. For the weapon system is (CBT range / 0.75) = Max Tech range

Some of the weapon that didn't get the above boost are:
MRM & Rockets only got a 30m boost range
Heavy M.G. No Range Boost.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Pale Rider 010, on 11 May 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

So basically, if you want tactics, you have tactics, as long as those tactics are all close range. You don't get to have long range weapons because the devs aren't going to give you long range weapons.

I'm sorry but the only actual points you've made are that TT values put max LRM range at 630 meters (And TT rules are holy and we must never change them or you'll ruin everything!), and that YOU think fighting at long range is "Hardly tactical." I just don't see how having a long range option isn't tactical. I understand it may not be desirable to turn the game into one big sniper fight, but surely the answer isn't "Just make everything close range."

Ranges in the TT rules, particularly of long range weapons, were limited so that TT games didn't have to fill an entire room. We do not have that limitation now. Please, give me one good, satisfying reason why a "Long range missile" should have a shorter effective range than today's M-16 rifle (800m to hit an area target, like a mech). Without invoking the holy law of "It's in TT so it cannot be changed," why shouldn't there be any long range weapons?

Today, an M1A1 Abrams tank carries a 120mm cannon with an effective range of 4000 meters. http://en.wikipedia....tall_120_mm_gun That is more than SIX TIMES the range of a "Long Range Missile."

Calling it a Long Range Missile, when it can only reach out to 630m, is both absurd and immersion breaking. Saying that having a long range option is not tactical is more absurd still. And finally, the TT rules and values are NOT holy scripture, nor are they perfect. I need to hear a better reason than "It was that way in TT" before I'll accept that in the future, long range weapons don't have the reach of today's infantry rifles.

That tank may be able to fire 4000 but on an ongoing battlefield...cut that in half. Also factor in if it needs support equipment or soldiers/scouts fo accuracy.

Not all battlefield conditions are sunshine, clear skies and no smoke from everything dying around you.

This game is a simulator, not an arcade sniper fest.

Can people STOP comparing real world weapon ranges to battletech. It's like reading forum topics written by autistic camels.

[Spooky]

PANZERBUNNY, on 11 May 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

As it has been stated....these new ranges...or very close to them were used in past mechwarrior games as well.

Yes, and that as well does not make them automatically wrong or right. Mechwarrior 2 for instance largely uses the same values (630m lock-on range for the IS-LRM20, 775m damage range). While these short ranges did not really make sense, it was ok from a gameplay perspective, due to visibility range issues amongst other things. Though the PPC (both ER and regular) reaches out to 1500m in MechWarrior 2 with full damage .

MechWarrior 3 uses increased ranges, 800 m for LRMs across the board (not sure if that's just the lock-on range and thus LRMs can technically fly much farther). That's alredy not "very close" to the MW:O values.



But ultimately...

PANZERBUNNY, on 11 May 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

Many reasons have been given as to WHY these new ranges are fine and how longer range sniping kills the game experience AND the viability of many chassis and equipment load outs. IF eveyone is toting gauss, LRM's and PPC's because all anyone ever does is jump up frmo behind hills launching attacks at each other.....hafl the mechs in the game see no use.

These reasons are completely moot. They are just pure speculation, based on individual players' expectations about a MechWarrior game. Play the game first.



Balancing these things is a delicate matter, no doubt about that. But I find arguments like the "Table-Top"-one, or that long range combat surely must kill the gameplay experience and is somehow "not tactical" silly.

Edited by Spooky, 11 May 2012 - 12:57 AM.

[sailordoom]

honestly, himo i think its a good idea to cut down range for missile ad long range weapons, in mech4 (i didnt play mech3 so i dont take it as example) i cuold switch off all medium and short range weapons from a missile boat for more lrm and ammo without penalities and its a bit odd, now with more "close range battle" i have to think smarter to my weapns loadout, for example now the 4 medium laser on the catapult have a chance to be used.

[LackofCertainty]

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

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

This sort of armchair general BS annoys me, because one of the core "problems" with LRMs you list is wrong, and wrong in a way that after a person played 1 game of MWO would be obviously, blatantly incorrect. (or in my case, just watched the vids closely) At 2:40 into the assault mech breakdown, Russ fires his LRM without a lock. Without a lock, his LRM's just fly at the spot his reticule was aiming at when he pulled the trigger.

This sort of speculation before the game has even come out, is on about the same level of idiocy as someone who watches one game of starcraft, and then pretends that they're some qualified expert on the balance issues of the game. Or someone who plays one game of LoL and feels that makes them qualified to talk about tournament level balance. You haven't even touched the game, let alone play tested it for the hours and hours and hours needed to talk intelligently about balance, so your thoughts on the subject don't matter.

Before the game comes out:
You can talk about aesthetics.
You can talk about design choices.
You can't talk about balance. Stop trying.
/rant

Max range of 640 sounds about right to me. It doesn't matter if it's a 33% reduction in range from previous MW games, because in previous MW games all weapons got a 33% increase in range for no reason.

PANZERBUNNY, on 11 May 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

Can people STOP comparing real world weapon ranges to battletech. It's like reading forum topics written by autistic camels.

To be fair, if autistic camels (or even regular camels for that matter) could operate a keyboard I'd be pretty darn impressed.

Edited by LackofCertainty, 11 May 2012 - 01:19 AM.

[Smurf O Pax]

yeah i can throw a stone nearly as far or further as a MG or small Laser fires in battletech ..... sorry the ranges are absolutely ridiclulous in anything other than TT and i only need to compare it to school sports without weapons

Doubled Ranges would make a much better game in my opinion .... at the moment it looks like some sort of "One must Fall" with weapons in exchange of fists ^^

Obstacles, aiming, lack of zoom would limit the engagement distances independently of the weapon ranges ... but i really can't see or understand why someone would stick to TT distances .... why build a gauss-rifle when you could build a big mech crossbow with the same fighting distance and effect? (myomer can power a mech it could also power a crossbow bolt ^^)

and yes the game is a simulator .... but somehow i try to understand what should be simulated with energy weapons and machine guns that are outdistanced by a good old Longbow (not the mech the wooden thing)

[Refizul]

The game is only in early BETA. So complaining about low weapon ranges is just stupid. But running around telling everybody how the weapon ranges are awesome is equally stupid. We don't know how the game plays and have only seen a little bit of footage from small matches. The devs have already said that everything (Mech, weapon, etc.) should be usefull in the game. That means they will try to balance the games as best as they can. And constant "in your face" combat is certainly not balanced. Neither is a snipe fest the wanted end result. If the gameplay and balance is better for it I don't care if the TT rules get modified. This is afterall a MechWarrior game and not a port of the TT game to the PC. That's what MW Tactics is for.

Also I'm sure that map variety alone will ensure that engagement ranges are not always the same.

[The Cheese]

Smurf-O-Pax, on 11 May 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Doubled Ranges would make a much better game in my opinion .... at the moment it looks like some sort of "One must Fall" with weapons in exchange of fists ^^

Dear lord, please don't bring melee into this... We'll get people demanding that an Atlas can land a punch at 300m.

[StaIker]

Quote

Many reasons have been given as to WHY these new ranges are fine and how longer range sniping kills the game experience AND the viability of many chassis and equipment load outs. IF eveyone is toting gauss, LRM's and PPC's because all anyone ever does is jump up frmo behind hills launching attacks at each other.....hafl the mechs in the game see no use.

Why would you even think this? It's that sort of dumbed down play that existed ONLY in 3p respawn games. It sounds to me like that's your only experience of MW and if so you really don't understand the issues involved in NR/FFP games.

[Varjen]

Spooky, on 11 May 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

Transferring Table-Top rules 1:1 to a game like MechWarrior does not automatically make it right. If anything, in the development of past MechWarrior games it showed that it is often the "wrong" approach.

Actually, to nitpick just a little, doing it the 1:1 style IS right. It might not be the good way to do it of course... But it would be a correct sim of the TT game. But i agree that some changes will have to be made for the sake of gameplay.

But still, being a grumpy oldtimer, it stings a little when i read posts that complain about heat issues, ranges and all the things that made BT the game it was. If everyone can be "Captain Alphastrike" or "Simon the Sniper" then the game will probably not be as much fun to play.

But what do i know. Im old and sour.

[Nighthound]

First of, this is Battletech, not Logitech (we all know how ridiculus most of these values and rules are), so keep your real life comments to your selves, this is fiction and it has only a marginal basis in reality.

I'm a TT player, I would like to see it if MW:O would adhere as close as possible to those rules as possible. With that said, I think it ridiculus to argue about something we realy haven't seen for ourselves.
Now, IF it turns out that, after 2 weeks of beta testing everyone is gravitating to 3-4 cassis and/or 3-4 weaponloadouts, THEN we can start arguing about changing Stuff and how we would change that Stuff, BUT arguing now makes little if no sense at all.

Compairing two Mechs is utterly useless. If it is the same Mech we don't need to compair it, if there are two Mechs we CAN'T compair them because they are different.
Compairing the Catapult to the Hunchback, because they have similar weight, is as effective as compairing the Atlas to the UrbanMech because they have similar speed and both (can) have an AC/20. It makes no sense. A Hunchback is a close combat brawler and will in all likelyhood defeat the Catapult in close combat. The Catapult is a long range SUPPORT Mech and will be able to cripple the Hunchback but mostlikely not be able to utterly defeat him. Now throw in some terrain and all bets are off. If you would (could) station your Catapult on Top of a Mountain and fire down on the Hunchback thus forcing him to climb up to you at half speed, it would give you an advantage. If the Hunback can corner you in a cave, well you get the picture.

There should be no Mech that is as good as undefeatable, as long as the RoleWarfare Model is working, and as long as ANY Mech is viable in at least one Role, as long as every Weapon has it's uses, all is good and well. If we stray from that path then it will be time to start complaining but not before.

Edited by Nighthound, 11 May 2012 - 01:56 AM.

[Pale Rider 010]

PANZERBUNNY, on 11 May 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

That tank may be able to fire 4000 but on an ongoing battlefield...cut that in half. Also factor in if it needs support equipment or soldiers/scouts fo accuracy.

Not all battlefield conditions are sunshine, clear skies and no smoke from everything dying around you.

This game is a simulator, not an arcade sniper fest.

Can people STOP comparing real world weapon ranges to battletech. It's like reading forum topics written by autistic camels.

Half range on an ongoing battlefield? Still more than three times the range of an LRM. Support equipment and scouts to extend range? LRM's have that.

Not all battlefield conditions are sunshine and clear skies? How is that at all relevant? Under IDEAL conditions, the LRM can still only reach 630m. IDEAL conditions. Spotter, clear weather, perfect firing position, everything. Please explain how that supports your claim? If you cut the actual range of the aforementioned gun down to a mere TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT of it's effective range, you STILL have a gun that has considerably longer range than battletech "Long Range Missiles."

Also, I seem to have missed the part where simulator HAD to mean "not long range." Seems to me if it's a simulator, it should have all the options, and not force everyone into close combat.

Also, autistic camels? Really? Must you resort to ad hominem attacks instead of making any valid points?

[Spooky]

Varjen, on 11 May 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

Actually, to nitpick just a little, doing it the 1:1 style IS right. It might not be the good way to do it of course... But it would be a correct sim of the TT game.

It would not be "correct". Or at least this alone would not make it a "correct sim" of the TT game. If you follow your argument further, i.e. copying TT 1:1 over, to make it a "correct sim", then you would need to change a lot more things than that. In TT, you cannot shoot legs directly for instance. In TT, you cannot minutely aim at things in the first place (i.e. you do not control a reticule with your mouse...). It's just by default a flawed argument. You can only ever so much as copy the general principles and properties over, with their own balance in the new game world, but never make a direct copy of the same rule-set of the TT game. Unless you want to make, you know.. a computer version of the TT game . Which MechWarrior is not, obviously.

[autogyro]

LRMs have 630 m range currently.

Let's bump that up to 1000 m.

What does this mean? Lights and close range mechs now have to contend with travelling another say, 400 m to get into range for their typically shorter range weapons whilst they can be fired at.

This throws out the balance for close range fighters because they now have to contend with crossing more distance before they can bring their weapons to bear.

That certainly throws out the balance between long range and short range mechs, doesn't it? Where's the balance here? Are we going to increase the speed of mechs to make up for this fact? Unlikely.

What if you also proportionally bumped up the range of other weapons? We start getting into longer range engagements. Is that what the devs want from MWO? If I recall I thought they hinted at having closer range battles and not snipeathons.

We have to get over the notion that 'oh, just because an M16 can shoot x m means my gauss rifle must be able to.' Well, no, it doesn't. If LRMs are 630 m, they are 630 m even if AMRAAMs can hit targets at 12 miles. BECAUSE THE REST OF THE GAME IS BALANCED AROUND THIS.

I'd take game balancing and fun to play over 'I'm used to 1000 m for LRMs'. If the LRMs are found to be effective at 200-630 m, then why should they have range increased to 1000 m and just making them overpowered?

Let's just wait to see how the game plays out before crying out about it.

[LordDeathStrike]

they should handle min range on the ppc by making it splash the fireing mech if shot under min range (still hurts the guy you hit, just hurts you just as much) this way the 3 ppc awesome isnt useless in a brawl, he can core you and gimp himself but still win the duel.

[Victor Morson]

I've got to say something very important here. 1 Meter scale in a game is not necessarily accurate.

1000m in MW4 was probably closer to 670m actual scale. It was poorly represented, because It didn't count for anything except a # inside of a game; unless a lot of effort is spent properly scaling things, this will happen. Sometimes it's even on purpose: Often, game designers will "scale up" rooms to make them look better opposed to using true scale, for example.

This really happens a lot with MechWarrior games, where people all have a slightly different idea of how tall a 'mech is in meters. This can lead to comical oversizing (The MWO teaser trailer ran close to this: Look at the tech next to he Atlas! The Atlas is huge!) or sometimes under sizing (Wait, a pilot fits in that?) and the game world can often be scaled around these 'mechs. Just something to keep in mind.

In summary, 600m in the videos we've seen looks much, much further away than 600m appeared in MW4. Honestly LRMs will probably feel about the same range as they did in the past.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 May 2012 - 03:00 AM.

[FrostPaw]

Give world of tanks a go, while this game obviously won't be exactly like that it gives a good clue of how much fun you can have as a tank when your enemy snipes from miles away. Between artillary and camping tanks in bushes you're forced to either snipe too or be one of the primary targets for everyone doing the sniping.

It really isn't much fun pixel hunting for tiny red ui targets at extreme range. It may well be fun to get kills from sniping but the combat satisfaction is definitely not there.

[LordDeathStrike]

FrostPaw, on 11 May 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

Give world of tanks a go, while this game obviously won't be exactly like that it gives a good clue of how much fun you can have as a tank when your enemy snipes from miles away. Between artillary and camping tanks in bushes you're forced to either snipe too or be one of the primary targets for everyone doing the sniping.

It really isn't much fun pixel hunting for tiny red ui targets at extreme range. It may well be fun to get kills from sniping but the combat satisfaction is definitely not there.

WoT can keep its pixel hunting snipe fest, i had enough of that in counter strike parked somewhere hard to find with an awp waiting for someone to stick their nuts out.

[Leetskeet]

Pale Rider 010, on 11 May 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

So basically, if you want tactics, you have tactics, as long as those tactics are all close range. You don't get to have long range weapons because the devs aren't going to give you long range weapons.

I'm sorry but the only actual points you've made are that TT values put max LRM range at 630 meters (And TT rules are holy and we must never change them or you'll ruin everything!), and that YOU think fighting at long range is "Hardly tactical." I just don't see how having a long range option isn't tactical. I understand it may not be desirable to turn the game into one big sniper fight, but surely the answer isn't "Just make everything close range."

Ranges in the TT rules, particularly of long range weapons, were limited so that TT games didn't have to fill an entire room. We do not have that limitation now. Please, give me one good, satisfying reason why a "Long range missile" should have a shorter effective range than today's M-16 rifle (800m to hit an area target, like a mech). Without invoking the holy law of "It's in TT so it cannot be changed," why shouldn't there be any long range weapons?

Today, an M1A1 Abrams tank carries a 120mm cannon with an effective range of 4000 meters. http://en.wikipedia....tall_120_mm_gun That is more than SIX TIMES the range of a "Long Range Missile."

Calling it a Long Range Missile, when it can only reach out to 630m, is both absurd and immersion breaking. Saying that having a long range option is not tactical is more absurd still. And finally, the TT rules and values are NOT holy scripture, nor are they perfect. I need to hear a better reason than "It was that way in TT" before I'll accept that in the future, long range weapons don't have the reach of today's infantry rifles.

QFT.

It is genuinely MADDENING that "Long" Range Missiles are nothing more than slighty-out-of-brawling-distance, inaccurate, and overly high arcing pea shooters.

So now I have a weapon that I can't defend myself with because it shoots straight up, all the while being close enough that the target can just walk forward into my face and watch me waddle around helplessly. And when I actually am getting shots off, half of them are spreading around on the ground beneath the mech I'm targeting, and the missiles that do hit are doing crap damage.

Looks like you're have to completely boat LRM20's to get a high enough hit count to make them actually feel it. But then they can do the shuffle in your face while laughing at you.

Edit - By the way. tabletop rules completely don't take into account travel time. That's why a majority of those rules NEED to be glanced at for nothing more than direction. It's unfortunate where these missiles have ended up. With this high-arcing nonsense(this should be a toggle) the minimum range is much farther than 200m(which is ridiculous of its own right) on anything that isn't moving away from you. Especially if it's a fast mech. The missiles are just going to arc down right behind the mech and do lots and lots of damage... to the ground. But I suppose the entire point of the arc is just to artificially create a minimum range... And it's literally just silly. Yes, silly.

Edited by Leetskeet, 11 May 2012 - 03:52 AM.