67 replies to this topic

[Solis Obscuri]

RobarGK, on 16 May 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

I cannot find the quote (although I found someone quoting Bryan saying he said this) but it is said that when you first start the game you will get to pick from one of four mechs, one in each weight class. So, if this is true, then why would every new player not pick the assault mech as their free mech?

Because it is I.S. T1 and lumbers around the map at 54kph top speed, and it's a walking artillery target. And every time it gets chewed to crap by LRMs, it cost a lot to repair, and that limits the player's ability to invest in new 'mech chassis or weapons and technology upgrades.

[Garth Erlam]

RobarGK, on 16 May 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

I think what is really needed is a way to make being an assault mech pilot, in some small way, unappealling to new players. Many of the more experianced players already know the types of mechs they like and will go for them first and pilot others only occasionally to mix it up a bit. But so many new players going for an assault first could make this game full of assault only battles. I know that personally, I will be piloting lights and heavies. Most of the players on the forum right now have a damn good idea of what exact mech they are going to pilot. But right now, with what information is out so far, why would a new pilot go for anything other then an assault? They just look so appealling at first.

I disagree, but I see what you're getting at - for me, we want new pilots in Assaults. Why? They'll survive mistakes and learn. And as they learn, they'll realise that those light, quick 'Mechs are picking them apart, so they'll try something new. Stick a new pilot in a light, and he rounds a corner head-on at an Assault, gets quickly destroyed, hates his experience, moves on.

This isn't to say Assaults take no skill, merely that heavier 'Mechs allow mistakes where lights don't.

[MadBoris]

Volthorne, on 17 May 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

It has been stated by the Devs that money transfers will not be in-game. In standard game modes (TDM and Capture), you die, you're done. Dropship mode (FFA/TDM?) will give you 3 respawns (4 mechs total).

Thx for that. I figured it would be one or the other, and the only one I heard was die once and out of the match.
'Dropship mode' with 4 spawns is new to me, thx. Is this documented?

Edited by MadBoris, 17 May 2012 - 11:19 AM.

[Wolfe Ryatt]

Here's my concern. If Light and Medium Mechs are made viable combatants versus an Assault class vehicle (and indications are that this is exactly what is happening), then Assault Mechs shouldn't then also cost 3 times as much. Why would anyone operate such a Mech if you could be just as effective in smaller Mechs for less cost?

Either Assault Mechs give a distinct advantage (ie, I'm able to routinely kill 3 light Mechs for every Light Mech that can kill me since they're 1/3 the price) OR the cost of operation is mitigated in some fashion. Yes..I don't really care about reality simulation in this case...I'm more concerned with gameplay.

Edited by Wolfe-Ryatt, 17 May 2012 - 11:24 AM.

[mouzerius]

in the tabel game they use a battle valleu system to pay for your mechs. just take a look at that.
a assault mech with crappy weapons is much cheaper than a hevy with good weapons lol.

[Wolfe Ryatt]

mouzerius, on 17 May 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

in the tabel game they use a battle valleu system to pay for your mechs. just take a look at that.
a assault mech with crappy weapons is much cheaper than a hevy with good weapons lol.

Not sure if you're responding to me, but that doesn't translate to the MW:O that we know thus far. With BattleValue, I can create 1 company of small Mechs to balance out, say, 1 lance of heavies or assaults.

[Verminaard]

I'm feeling the best way to balance out assaults supposed superiority will be the following:

Repairs are based on how much there is to fix. It's cheaper to fix 25 tons of mech than 100 tons of mech.

(ex) So the 25 ton commando will take 200,000 to completely fix from being destroyed.
And the 100 ton atlas will take 800,000 to completely fix from being destroyed.

But in a game perhaps you get money per role/objectives/wins etc.

So you:
Won game = 400,000 C-bills
Scouted 3 mechs = 50,000 C-bills each (150,000)
Got 2 kills = 150,000 each (300,000)
Assisted teammates = 200,000
totaling: 1,050,000 Cbills

As a commado you just made a profit of 800,000, as the atlas only some 200,000


Sum up
Obviously these prices are completely off, Im just giving an example. But bigger mechs should take more to keep in working order. Cost more upfront and maybe take longer to fix (if its not instant). This will encourage players to use lighter mechs that can get them more games quicker, and keep maybe 1-2 heavier mechs in their mechbay

[Wolfe Ryatt]

Verminaard, on 17 May 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

I'm feeling the best way to balance out assaults supposed superiority will be the following:

Repairs are based on how much there is to fix. It's cheaper to fix 25 tons of mech than 100 tons of mech.

(ex) So the 25 ton commando will take 200,000 to completely fix from being destroyed.
And the 100 ton atlas will take 800,000 to completely fix from being destroyed.

But in a game perhaps you get money per role/objectives/wins etc.

So you:
Won game = 400,000 C-bills
Scouted 3 mechs = 50,000 C-bills each (150,000)
Got 2 kills = 150,000 each (300,000)
Assisted teammates = 200,000
totaling: 1,050,000 Cbills

As a commado you just made a profit of 800,000, as the atlas only some 200,000


Sum up
Obviously these prices are completely off, Im just giving an example. But bigger mechs should take more to keep in working order. Cost more upfront and maybe take longer to fix (if its not instant). This will encourage players to use lighter mechs that can get them more games quicker, and keep maybe 1-2 heavier mechs in their mechbay

Why would I ever play an Assault or heavy under your scenario? Both Mechs win...so the only deciding factor is that one gains more profit, and perhaps less down time for repairs.

[Black Water]

Because if you play as a lighter mech in that scenario, odds are you won't get those kills, only assists, so you will earn less. But as a larger mech you might be able to get more kills and dish more damage out to earn more money. He was just giving a blanket scenario.

Also, he said from being completely destroyed, hopefully in either case you weren't destroyed. That way you earn more.

Edited by Black Water, 17 May 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[Verminaard]

Because as a assault mech: You should get kills. Those Ac20's, gauss and so on make armor crumble rather quickly when you hit. They would probably have a cash base on damage done also.

Aka you do 1,000 points of damage = 100,000 Cbills
do 100 points of damage = 10,000 cbills

So if you're doing anything you should be (as an assault basically shoot and destroy stuff) you'll be making good money.

As I said, it was an example which I didn't bother to take an hour to go into heavy detail, because many people will just say "to long, didn't read" and whats the point then?

As stated the downside would be when you die (which will take awhile due to all your armor) your repairs will cost the same as a light mech, but considering your basically 4 light mechs worth of a mech. You're simply costing 4x as much to fix. You probably have more expensive weapons on your mech also, which when destroyed, are NOT cheap to fix.


Basic point:
It costs more to keep a Abrams battle tank working, fixxed, fueled etc. than lets say, a Centurion (the tank, not battlemech).

why? Abrams has high tech armor, weapons, electroinics and so on. Its only natural it costs more to field the best.


Don't agree? The lore even tends to state that assault mechs aren't cheap to maintain, heck any MW game with upkeep the assaults take more maintenance, more upfront costs, and more to fix when damaged than a light or medium.


Remember** you're free to disagree, just stating the obvious here..

[Redshift2k5]

Garth Erlam, on 17 May 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I disagree, but I see what you're getting at - for me, we want new pilots in Assaults. Why? They'll survive mistakes and learn. And as they learn, they'll realise that those light, quick 'Mechs are picking them apart, so they'll try something new. Stick a new pilot in a light, and he rounds a corner head-on at an Assault, gets quickly destroyed, hates his experience, moves on.

This isn't to say Assaults take no skill, merely that heavier 'Mechs allow mistakes where lights don't.

Excellent points, I was a bit worried about everyone rushing to the biggest mechs and making for top-heavy team compositions, but it will absolutely be the best for the game to give new players that opportunity, without forcing them to be the pilot in the second example.

[Wolfe Ryatt]

Verminaard, on 17 May 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

Because as a assault mech: You should get kills. Those Ac20's, gauss and so on make armor crumble rather quickly when you hit. They would probably have a cash base on damage done also.

Aka you do 1,000 points of damage = 100,000 Cbills
do 100 points of damage = 10,000 cbills

So if you're doing anything you should be (as an assault basically shoot and destroy stuff) you'll be making good money.

As I said, it was an example which I didn't bother to take an hour to go into heavy detail, because many people will just say "to long, didn't read" and whats the point then?

As stated the downside would be when you die (which will take awhile due to all your armor) your repairs will cost the same as a light mech, but considering your basically 4 light mechs worth of a mech. You're simply costing 4x as much to fix. You probably have more expensive weapons on your mech also, which when destroyed, are NOT cheap to fix.


Basic point:
It costs more to keep a Abrams battle tank working, fixxed, fueled etc. than lets say, a Centurion (the tank, not battlemech).

why? Abrams has high tech armor, weapons, electroinics and so on. Its only natural it costs more to field the best.


Don't agree? The lore even tends to state that assault mechs aren't cheap to maintain, heck any MW game with upkeep the assaults take more maintenance, more upfront costs, and more to fix when damaged than a light or medium.


Remember** you're free to disagree, just stating the obvious here..

It's not that I agree or disagree. I'm just concerned about creating the reverse problem that existed in MW3/MW4 when most people choose heavy/Assaults. If all the advantages go toward lighter mechs, that's all you'll see being played. Now I don't mind if the devs skew balance a bit to favor Mediums or even heavies as the most effecient c-bill earners. But it can't so costly and unprofitable to pilot an Assault mech that nobody does it. And frankly, I don't care too much about lore in this regard, and neither should anyone who wants to pilot light mechs. Because if lore is the benchmark, then Light Mechs shouldn't be receiving the handicapped advantages hard coded into the game (at least as I'm seeing it now).

[Solis Obscuri]

Wolfe-Ryatt, on 17 May 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Here's my concern. If Light and Medium Mechs are made viable combatants versus an Assault class vehicle (and indications are that this is exactly what is happening), then Assault Mechs shouldn't then also cost 3 times as much. Why would anyone operate such a Mech if you could be just as effective in smaller Mechs for less cost?

Either Assault Mechs give a distinct advantage (ie, I'm able to routinely kill 3 light Mechs for every Light Mech that can kill me since they're 1/3 the price) OR the cost of operation is mitigated in some fashion. Yes..I don't really care about reality simulation in this case...I'm more concerned with gameplay.

The advantages of either design tends to be situational. 1v1, it's a David vs. Goliath of speed and agility vs. armor and firepower. In massed groups, the advantages of assaults multiply, but the speed and agility of lighter 'mechs give them an ability to mob and destroy stragglers or divided forces in ways that heavier 'mechs can't.

All that said, I'd expect the sturdier assaults and heavies to be the survivors of most pitched battles due to the "forgiving" (along with perhaps a few of the more clever/cautious scouts) nature of large amounts of armor, but their repair costs might still be on order with a badly scrapped light or medium chassis.

As far as the kills/points argument goes, we're getting rewards for things like detection and spotting, not just damage output, so I don't think assaults are fundamentally going to be the better chassis to have. Especially since their lack of mobility can keep them out of fighting, or from pursuing damaged opponents in many circumstances.

[Verminaard]

Assault mechs aren't useless at all, they are necessary in their own way. If the team has an assault play-style it's very effective if done right. The problem is all previous games have indeed favored assaults.

Many people say the Hunchback can now take on an assault, and that makes many atlas pilots go "***, that's not fair, This mech is bigger for a reason.."

Indeed it is, They are simply saying that the hunchback should now stand a chance, if the terrain is right and the pilot is smart. Not that they'll win 50% of battle on an open field.

If you're sitting in your atlas and the hunchback starts walking towards you from across the field, without using cover, the victory is yours, easily. Just pick off his Ac20 then dismantle him. However, if you're not using cover, and a hunchback is using rocks to run around and avoid your fire. They're now saying this play-style will give the hunchback a 50-50 shot at winning (assuming equal pilot skill or such).

For assaults it's all going to be about lining up your shots with good timing and keeping them in your view, and your back safe. You'll need to use teammates to cover your back end and give you information on where to point those massive guns.

Yes, you will require more to fix. But that's only because that raven could chip away at you for 5 minutes and maybe destroy a weapon. Where as you simply need to get a full alpha into him and he's all but dead. He's now useless for the rest of the match, or nearly so. You being down 1 weapon, still have 2-3 other big guns in all probability and are still a useful asset to the team. and it's now 4 vs 3 or 12 vs 11.

Assaults will still be useful, and lights and mediums wont just walk up to you and directly brawl, instead they will try taking advantage of your slow turning and slow speed to get behind you and destroy your weak rear armor. Your mechs will still be a monster if played right; As a team.

If the devs say that all this is completely false, then I'm clueless as to what they've turned the game into, and very worried.

[LanceKoth]

Probably the best and easiest way to balance the whole assault versus light thing, is to use a point system, assign the mechs values based on tonnage, equipment, etc. and limit matches to a certain value. That way, it should be a little easier to balance.

Otherwise, I feel heavy mechs should be more to buy/repair, it just makes sense.

[Wolfe Ryatt]

Verminaard, on 17 May 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

<snip>

You're actually describing how I hope the game plays out as well. I don't want to see a return to the old vid game scenarios when only one type of Mech is viable. It always irked me that Light Mechs were never properly implemented. It seems like MWO will offer the best attempt yet to make them what they should be. But as I said, it shouldn't swing to the other extreme and make Light Mechs the overwhelming tactical and c-bill class of choice. It will be interesting to see how the devs implement this. I like what I'm seeing so far with regards to tactical implementation of Lights (of all Mechs actually)...it remains to be seen how the cost of operation is handled.

[Verminaard]

That's what we're all speculating also. Obviously no one wants lights to win fights against assaults 50-50, that would be insane. But they should be able to delay them or annoy them for awhile. But 2-3 Lights would be able to down an assault, fireing at his back then running away. This is what they mean by taking on an assault mech.

Also light mechs will die more often, considering their low armor, Where as assaults tend to have armor to survive battles. Therefore meaning less rebuilding if you survive. you'll also not likely scout (lyrans exempt) so being away from teammates is unlikely, giving your survivability a substantial boost also.

Remember, the goal is to make ALL weight classes playable, and fun. Not a meta-game of only assault mechs.

Lights are much more independent and "free spirits" where assaults will be with the group.

[Chunkymonkey]

SgtPaladin, on 16 May 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

I think we have to consider the length of the universe. is a 90t mech from IS-pre clan worth as much as a 75 ton madcat? no way. also who would BUY a charger?!?!?! you cannot tell me that is worth more than a hellfire!

They could do a market based on the current demands of players. And to make it canonical, they could reflect the market on current production. Clan Machines could be salvage supposedly. This could also work for weapons.

[Yeach]

Maybe generally larger mechs will cost more than lighter mechs.
However the balancing factor will be weapons, engine and armor.
So basically Cost should be based (equivalent) to Battle Value (but not necessarily TT BV).

If we go with starter mechs here would be my selections.
Commando, Clint, Jagermech and Banshee

None of them exactly great for their class but all useable in the right situation.

Edited by Yeach, 17 May 2012 - 08:30 PM.

[Insidious Johnson]

SgtPaladin, on 16 May 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

I think we have to consider the length of the universe. is a 90t mech from IS-pre clan worth as much as a 75 ton madcat? no way. also who would BUY a charger?!?!?! you cannot tell me that is worth more than a hellfire!

I'd BUY a charger as soon as melee gets put in. I'd go buy a dodge charger and paint it up the Dukes of Hassad.

Edited by Insidious Johnson, 17 May 2012 - 09:20 PM.