Gladiator mode

[MrAgmoore]

1v1 and 3v3

Bring your friends, bang some heads, lots of spectators.

I have my team picked out: Me ( Ice ), SM_SUCKER, Crush_Libs versus -AAA- and his team.

I think 3 on 3 would appeal to experienced players but 1 on 1 could be a useful learning tool for new players and experienced, alike.


Existing maps could be used but I think it would be interesting if the red borders randomized within a map, that would give a random starting location ( ie. it's not possible to generate random terrains and cities in real time but a random starting location with random borders would spice it up a bit ).

[Virt]

I'd love to try this, but high ping means I have to play larger scale battles to have an impact, sadly.

[Leeko]

http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/forum/index.php/board,92.0.html

[MrAgmoore]

http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/forum/index.php/topic,10096.0.html

24 rules? No that's definitely not what I was thinking. 80 K limits the players to a specific class of mechs ( I was thinking 150 k per player: basically the most expensive asset in the game + 10 k for ammo / BA weapon).

Rules that I dislike:

6.No ejecting

- Why not?

8.No intentional legging

- Might as well say, "no Novacat B". A heavier, slower mech legging a lighter, faster mech seems perfectly valid to me.


The beauty of the table top game was that a faster, lighter mech could tactically take down a heavier, slower mech. To say, "no call shots" ie. no arming, legging or headshots defeats the concept of the game imho.

It's not something that interests me. To each, their own.

[(TLL)KitLightning]

A Gladiator mode should not have any whatsoever rules embedded other than no ejection. The reason that that rule should be in is the mere fact that in reality you eject as a pilot but in the game eject as a Bloody Armoured Calavalry.
A Gladiator Mode should honor the gladiators choise of weapon and the gladiator should thus fight with whatever they have at their disposal, in any way they choose.

http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/forum/index.php/topic,10096.0.html

Odd that "No Backshots" where added to the list, that is equally as dishonoable as legging?

[~SJ~MausGMR]

Just to point out, the 80k in LA provides an overall team total of 400k in a 5 man unit, which can be spread across the members in any way you like. You can still afford the most expensive assets, you'll just limit your other pilots to cheaper variants.

Good luck with your endeavours.

[MrAgmoore]

Just to point out, the 80k in LA provides an overall team total of 400k in a 5 man unit, which can be spread across the members in any way you like. You can still afford the most expensive assets, you'll just limit your other pilots to cheaper variants.

Good luck with your endeavours.

Some people can afford the most expensive assets, some people will have to do without.

Some people prefer specific classes or types of mechs, according to their individual playing style.

[SquareSphere }12thVR{]

I always say don't knock it until you try it.  The rules are kinda loose in 1 v 1 in that if you get hit in the leg it happens.  The reason for no intentional legging is that leg armor is far less the torso armor (common MW flaw) so it reduces the length and quality of combat.

[Leeko]

Some people can afford the most expensive assets, some people will have to do without.

Some people prefer specific classes or types of mechs, according to their individual playing style.

So, what are you saying, you don't like that because you can't have a team of assault Mechs? But you just mentioned that you liked how in CBT weight class didn't always determine who wins. I guess you're just argumentative.

[MrAgmoore]

I always say don't knock it until you try it.  The rules are kinda loose in 1 v 1 in that if you get hit in the leg it happens.  The reason for no intentional legging is that leg armor is far less the torso armor (common MW flaw) so it reduces the length and quality of combat.

Is it a flaw or a design feature?

[(TLL)KitLightning]

I always say don't knock it until you try it.  The rules are kinda loose in 1 v 1 in that if you get hit in the leg it happens.  The reason for no intentional legging is that leg armor is far less the torso armor (common MW flaw) so it reduces the length and quality of combat.

A flaw by design but not by anything else and that goes for all bipedal assets. The Legs (Cougar: LL 3643) can only carry a small amount of armor in comparison to say the Torso (Cougar: CT 4286) that they still needs to be able to move under that weight too. The Leg has more armor in 0.3.0. than in 0.2.0. and it is much harder to leg an opponent now, not to say that the Weapons have been adjusted between the two builds!
 That the rule is in on the excuse of having the matches last longer is dumb and carries little weight that most Players in the Ladder will want a swift and quick match. With that logic disarming the opponent should then also be disallowed, as well as backshots.

Is it a flaw or a design feature?

It can be said that the Leg-armor was flawed in 0.2.0. but certainly not in the current build.

[MrAgmoore]

I love the way the armor is currently designed in the game.

I tend to utilize shock tactics in tactical and strategic games ( Hannibal versus the Romans: )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal

Owens versus Uller ( which almost always starts at the beginning of the game ) is all about maneuverability versus Uller's arming and legging. Novacat B - sniper-arming or sniper-legging. Madcat Beatstick: arming or headshots. And my latest experiment: Uziel twin light gauss for sniper-arming.

When I'm in a combat support role I'm either SRM / MRM ing or performing battlefield amputations using the above.

The only mech that I think might have a problem is the Osiris series, which has fragile legs - a BA can use a micro heavy laser, followed by SRMs and basically 2-shot the Osiris. I sometimes see people using the Osiris but I don't think that it makes a good battlefield mech.

I was playing a 1v1 gladiatorial arena style versus Mechman. I had an Owens B and he had an Osiris. My Owens lost and Mechman mentioned that the Osiris' strength lies in it's ability to 360 torso twist, which is why it beats an owens in a 1v1 duel.

I've played Battle Tech a couple of times and a new player would notice that the weak armor in the back torso makes it vulnerable so I asked the teacher the question, "Why would they design a game mechanic like that? People have been using plate armor since medieval times ( which protects both the back and front torso ). And this is a futuristic game so it seemed like a non-sequitur:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_mail

He replied something like, "the engine is located there and it generates an interesting game mechanic where, in order to protect your back torso, you have to do torso twisting, circling manouvres". My face looked like this:  To which he said something like, "Don't worry, you'll see as we play".

( If you had all of the armor that you wanted in your legs, arms, head, front and back torso, you wouldn't have Mechwarrior, you'd basically have TankWars 2020 

[Leeko]

Owens versus Uller ( which almost always starts at the beginning of the game ) is all about maneuverability versus Uller's arming and legging. Novacat B - sniper-arming or sniper-legging. Madcat Beatstick: arming or headshots. And my latest experiment: Uziel twin light gauss for sniper-arming.

When I'm in a combat support role I'm either SRM / MRM ing or performing battlefield amputations using the above.

I like how you're not even a little ashamed that what you focus on is arming/legging.

The only mech that I think might have a problem is the Osiris series, which has fragile legs - a BA can use a micro heavy laser, followed by SRMs and basically 2-shot the Osiris. I sometimes see people using the Osiris but I don't think that it makes a good battlefield mech.

IIRC the Osiris has half the armor of the Puma and Raven, way less than in canon CBT. This really needs to change.