101 replies to this topic

[RagingOyster]

Archphor, on 10 February 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

I think you mean superior (better then) not inferior (worse then).
and i agree, its not needed.

No, he means inferior.

A tank gives you a wide, stable platform allowing you to mount far more armor and a more powerful main gun(s) (Can you say TriGauss?) than a mech of the same tonnage.

Tanks make mechs obsolete.

[TungstenWall]

RagingOyster, on 10 February 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

No, he means inferior.

A tank gives you a wide, stable platform allowing you to mount far more armor and a more powerful main gun(s) (Can you say TriGauss?) than a mech of the same tonnage.

Tanks make mechs obsolete.

Sadly i don't have much of a battletech/MW background, but i must argue with you here.

While tanks do offer FAR better weapon platforms in a vacuum, when you think about the maps we have now, this may not be the case.

As you must have noticed by now, Mechs have little to no trouble going up hill (even steep hills). They hardly even slow down when doing so!
Tanks would be forced to a crawl to get up such hills, and cliffs like in River City (at the broken bridge) tanks could only get up using the ramp.

Mechs also dont suffer as much from the ability to aim their weapons. They can easily shoot over small buildings and objects. They also can shoot almost straight up or down!
Tanks would have no such luxury. Getting on a hill/building next to a tank would effectively prevent the tanker from fighting back. You also would have to expose your entire vehicle to shoot down at something below you in a tank.

LRMS!
You think Mechs get hit hard? You know how Awesomes get hit easily due to their "broad side of a barn" bodies? Imagine being an Awesome that slid around the ground on it's back. Direct fire weapons would be harder to use against you, but missiles would likely hit 95% of the time on such a massive target.


Lastly
Situational Awareness!
Ever play World of Tanks? Ever play a round in WoT only in Gunner mode(1st person)? Its the definition of tunnel vision!
Mechs have cockpits, they have the ability to look over a relatively large area without moving, and can easily scan a massive area with torso twisting.
Tanks would only see the outside world through a tube. A clever Atlas could probably sneak up on you. That is why WoT uses 3rd person, because the game would be "WTF is shooting me?" half the time.


If tanks make it in game, Highlanders will be playing Super Mario.... Maybe tanks would be too underpowered for the game. "make sure to bring a heavy/assault with JJs to DFA all the enemy tanks like every 8v8 must have ECM"

Edited by TungstenWall, 10 February 2013 - 08:51 PM.

[Dr Killinger]

Not as a player-controlled item, please! Would add another dimension to the balancing of the game, and in the end we're all here for the mechs.

I'd perhaps like to see them called in like artillery or an air strike- an AI unit that can roll in from the base if the commander has the correct modules/whatever.

[Mr Mantis]

Mechassault 2 gross? You aren't one of those 3rd person people are you? Anyway gross.

Also with tanks the only reason i could see them implemented in game is by a defense game type with dropship respawn and other fun goodies to throw at the invaders like turrets. Actually that sounds kind of epic, or maybe like what they are doing with airstrikes.

[Eddrick]

Maybe, later.

I played MechWarrior 4 and the tabletop. Both have vehicles adn other types of troops. Anything, besides a Mech, doesn't last long against a Mech. But, like one above mentioned. It may be hard to balance. I hear we have enough balance issues as is.

[Stygian Steel]

i think a.i controlled tanks and fighters would be great, they could make it part of the commander skill tree or somthing, i know their going to add air strikes and stuff, but having the ability to send a compliment of tanks to say, guard the base or go to point A and guard it, or just have one or two easily destroyed tanks to follow around would be an awesome thing to have, hey right there is the counter to the clans having better tech, they wouldn;t have tank support

[Volthorne]

TungstenWall, on 10 February 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

LRMS!
You think Mechs get hit hard? You know how Awesomes get hit easily due to their "broad side of a barn" bodies? Imagine being an Awesome that slid around the ground on it's back. Direct fire weapons would be harder to use against you, but missiles would likely hit 95% of the time on such a massive target.

Excuse me, but on maps like River City, why would you even LEAVE the tight confines of the city corridors while playing as a tank? Move as a convoy, take out any spotters that try and get close, wait-out the LRM boats, attain victory. On maps like Caustic, sure, they'd be SOL, but OP as F*** on anything that has even a small, tightly packed industrial complex (not like the one on Caustic, that one is much too wide-open).

[Khobai]

Quote

Tanks make mechs obsolete.

Except that they don't. Tanks might get more armor than mechs but they also get way less internal structure. Additionally, unlike a mech, whenever a single location on a Tank is destroyed, the entire Tank is destroyed.

[JPsi]

AI controlled.

Dont give them the double armour bonus. Its not like we really have to be consistent in that regard .
Its not like TT has been followed consistently so far, I see no need to follow it too closely here.
Throw in battleships, aircraft, dropships, turrets, repair bays and radar towers while at it.

Hell, in the interests of balance, make them squishier and dumber than those craft in the MW4: Mercs campaigns.

Edited by JPsi, 10 February 2013 - 11:10 PM.

[Stormwolf]

Ashnod, on 10 February 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

Double the armor my friend, and take away crits like fuel explosions, welcome to MWO, also.. 1 mech = 2 tanks

Come on, that is rather weak reasoning, the devs can easily bring in crits for vehicles.

[Craftyman]

it won't happen. Ever.

[Sephlock]

"1 mech, 2 tanks"... I'm not sure if I want to see that video...

[Ghogiel]

TungstenWall, on 10 February 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

when you think about the maps we have now,

This is the crux of the the situation. The level design will need to take into account the tracked vehicle class, if they would use the CE3 support for vehicles, Which I would imagine they would, playing a tank will probably not be very fun on any of the current maps. Not even on river city.

[saber15]

Skadi, on 10 February 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Go play MWLL and think this over.

Demolisher > Mech.

Yeah, until there's any form of obstacles (rocks, hills) that the mech can smoothly go over while the driver in the tank gets thrashed around on every bump.


Or you can just, you know, run away. The Demolisher is a boat, plain and simple. As soon as you get further than 400 meters away from him, he can't do crap to you unless it's the dual Gauss variant (at which point you just get close and circle-strafe him).

[Turist0AT]

I want tanks, the more vehechles the better, you get more dynamic and deeper game play. Thats why i think MWLL was such a hit even tho it was only a mod. BUUUUT if you gonna add that then you need to increse player count.
Devs need to work on to make this game more lasting, it just gets old fast, because of the small veriety of gameplay etc.

[Mechteric]

Mechwarrior Living Legends is definitely worth your time if you wanna fight some tanks and aeros and elementals. Way better than cruddy old Mech Assault!

[Khobai]

Anyone saying vehicles are unbalanced because of MWLL is wrong. MWO is a totally different game. Thats like saying AK47s are overpowered in L4D2 so they must also be overpowered in Dead Island. That is such flawed reasoning Im not even going to waste anymore time explaining it....

Additionally, MWO is based on battletech, and in battletech vehicles are worse than mechs. So if vehicles were implemented in MWO its highly probable that they would use the same rules as Battletech; which means destroy one location and you destroy the entire vehicle.

[Roland]

Mechwarrior is about playing in MECHS.
Adding non-mech vehicles will bring absolutely nothing of value to this game.

[Brenden]

Well, if combat vehicles are to be added, why these for starters?
http://www.sarna.net...(Combat_Vehicle) For support.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mobile_HQ For transmitting information along the battle field.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/J._Edgar For scouting and raiding.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Union Just for the Background, like you can see them on the edges of the map but just there for show.

[Adrian Steel]

Vassago Rain, on 10 February 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

I did. It doesn't make the game fun.
It makes mechs useless, as you'd expect.

LL is a dead game, with empty servers, and it's been that way for pretty much its whole existence. It never focused on mechs, but wanted to be battletech the strategic operations simulator.

I want giant robots fighting, and hope they never add tanks, infantry, or planes to this game.

I played MWLL for a year +. The game is dead because of the barriers to entry and lack of marketing; not because it's a bad game.

Tank and Aerospace assets (when properly implemented) add variety to the gameplay.

A good mech pilot can outmaneuver and flank tanks to take them out. While heavy tanks can outgun and out-armor their tonnage equivalent in mechs; they're basically area denial turrets and can't get anywhere fast.

I wouldn't mind seeing them *after* everything that has been promised is in the game.

Edited by Adrian Steel, 11 February 2013 - 07:22 AM.