367 replies to this topic

[Vandul]

Teralitha, on 12 June 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

I also served in the navy, on a ship. Your wrong about radars just sitting on top of someting and could 'fall out' Navy ship can and have rocked beyond 42 degrees in high seas and this doesnt happen. Not attaching the radar is dumb. They are attached.

And mechs engines are not in the legs... neither are the weapons, in general.

A mechs gyro is a powerful thing, and allows it to run, jump, fly, stand up straight etc... A swiveling 360 torso is a minor feat for a mech gyro. Sorry...

I should know, I designed it.



Support 360

I probably wasnt clear on that. The Radars are mounted, but are designed to shear away in the event of a catastrophic roll. The design is intended to unload top bearing weight in the event of a catastrophic rollover. We dont need another Poseidon. The 42 degrees is arbitrary and I should have stated so. The last time I was on a ship, it was still in the Eighties. I know, older than dirt, etc...

Im waiting for a good friend of mine to respond to a text. He was a 48E Technician with me onboard some Leahy class cruisers. Things could have changed a lot since then as well.

Anyhow, the powerplant could be carried in the basket, but the problem then is how do you get the power from the upper torso, to the legs, myomers, actuators, etc... Transmission rings, the weak link.

[Antarius]

I dont get the problem...

This isnt the TT, this is an adaption. I dont care if the rules said specificly only 120' (and i played the TT a long time), because one reason was to get a weakpoint for a roundbased TT. In a realtime game you have other posibilitys to get the weakspot (torso-turnrate for example).

I please shut up with semi-logical-techological explanations why it couldnd work.... you know its a game, you know nothing of this **** would work in the real world with our understanding of sience of today.

So be rational and discuss if it would be a good idea for this game, not the TT.

In my opinion it would ba a good idea, diverent torso/leg-turnrates give sense to diverent Mechs of the same tonnage, otherwise you could give us one mech for every tonnage and we build us our favorit setup. (ok, i read something about "you cant costomize your mech entirely")

it would be nice if you only discuss this topic, for this game, nothing else...


if you are afraid light mechs get weaker, you are wrong (if implemented like in mw4 or mwll), with the torso-turnrate of an Atlas for example its easy to stay behind him even with a raven, who isnt the fastest light-mech, if you have a bit of space, otherwise use the terrain.


only if you didnt get it, i love light mechs, mostly play them and i am for 360', for a few mechs!

[Teralitha]

shortpainter, on 12 June 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

However, the 120 degree rotation is a fundamental rule of Battletech. This rule is as important as heat sinks, differing weapon ranges, armor values and max tonnage for a chassis. All of which have made it into the game so far, the rotation limit will too.

The only thing that makes it "fundamental" is hexboards. Twisting was limited by the sides of a hex. There is no such limitation in a simulation.

[Vandul]

All of the projecta-tech aside, I think its a bad idea. Im already worried that its going to degrade into matches of circle-strafe. The last thing I want to do is chase a mech running away from me but has his forward facing weapons (and thickest armor) pointing at me.

Might as well give them minelayers while were at it.

Edited by Vandul, 12 June 2012 - 09:33 AM.

[Gorith]

Teralitha, on 12 June 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

No it isnt, No it wasnt. The only reason it was in TT is because of hexes. We dont have that here. Gyros. yes 360 was indeed fun for the masses, tell me... who played PvE in MW4 for 12 years?

Based on your comments, it stands to reason that 360 in MWO will ALSO be fun for the masses. You shot yourself in the foot with that one...

NEXT

Support 360

Firstly fun for the masses sure... so was cross server LFG in WoW and look what that has caused. Just because it's fun doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Secondly the Hexes have nothing to do with TT not having 360 twisting as nothing about hexes magicaly makes it to where they couldn't make a mech capable of rotating it's torso completely around. The limited torso twist is to build in a weakness. And from a game design standpoint everything needs weaknesses and many of them. It forces you to think about what your doing and going to do it's part of what makes tactical gaming tactical. In the case of torso twisting it emphasizes movement and positioning Without blindspots in the mechs firing arc these are not as important (still important but not as important)

[Teralitha]

Vandul, on 12 June 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

I probably wasnt clear on that. The Radars are mounted, but are designed to shear away in the event of a catastrophic roll. The design is intended to unload top bearing weight in the event of a catastrophic rollover. We dont need another Poseidon. The 42 degrees is arbitrary and I should have stated so. The last time I was on a ship, it was still in the Eighties. I know, older than dirt, etc...

Im waiting for a good friend of mine to respond to a text. He was a 48E Technician with me onboard some Leahy class cruisers. Things could have changed a lot since then as well.

Anyhow, the powerplant could be carried in the basket, but the problem then is how do you get the power from the upper torso, to the legs, myomers, actuators, etc... Transmission rings, the weak link.

Thats kewl. As for the problem of power transference, I solved this with static rings, and having it grounded withing the joint itself, and by placing an electric transformer that the charge funnels into, and is then regulated by an electric board that remotely receives signals from the cockpit, and controls the electric surges necessary to stimulates the contractions of the myomers in the legs for gyro stability and movement. The torso is otherwise attached to the lower body with a stong light weight alloy cylinder of metal which pivots smoothly from its ball bearing attachments at the base. Where teh top of the cylinder is solidly attached the back bone of the torso.
One might argue that if the mech were inverted, that the torso would simple 'fall off'. I admit that there is a weak point at the ball bearing attachment, and if the mech were to hang upside for a long period of time, the attachment would give way under the contrain strain. But since mechs are not generally inverted, this does not pose a real threat to the design, and was acceptable to the great houses who immediately put the designs into production.

Apart from showing you the exact detail in my patented blueprints, which I will not do, there you are, the Xfactor identified.


I hope this clear it up.

Gorith, on 12 June 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Firstly fun for the masses sure... so was cross server LFG in WoW and look what that has caused. Just because it's fun doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I think FUN in a game is always a good idea. Otherwise why play.


Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 12 June 2012 - 09:48 AM.

[Slyck]

Antarius, on 12 June 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

I please shut up with semi-logical-techological explanations why it couldnd work.... you know its a game, you know nothing of this **** would work in the real world with our understanding of sience of today.

So be rational and discuss if it would be a good idea for this game, not the TT.

Except this is more the just a game, it is part of a much larger IP that stretches out in to many different mediums. Therefore elements in the game must conform to the pre-existing internal rules that already exist within cannon and lore. So "This is good gameplay" is important, but its not a good enough reason on its own to include something.

Now, while TT is the root of this IP, I do understand that there is a lot of room in the gaps that can be better defined here. I rather like the idea of having unique turn rates and arcs for different mechs. Just as long as this doesn't stretch the internal consistencies of the universe too far.

[Major Bill Curtis]

Guessing that twist will be limited, despite many goofy arguments going on here.

Why?

Arms.

Making one fully-integrated aspect of the game completely superfluous with a speculative and wholly unnecessary gimmick is not good game design. Argue about that all you want: wiggle, gesticulate, and pontificate . . . dance if you like . . . 360 degree twist makes it much more difficult to justify other aspects of the game from the standpoint of a game.

Rationalize this however you like (my own favorite so far is the "clock" explanation; yes, sure, rotational mechanics at any scale means applicability in all situations . . . please never design an aircraft I fly on . . . seriously).

I also don't think the limit needs to be 60 degrees, as it was it TT; somewhere in the 90-120 range seems reasonable enough. In the end, this is a minor issue that creates more holes than it fills.

Please recall that TT had turrets

Edited by Major Bill Curtis, 12 June 2012 - 09:54 AM.

[Teralitha]

Slyck, on 12 June 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Except this is more the just a game, it is part of a much larger IP that stretches out in to many different mediums. Therefore elements in the game must conform to the pre-existing internal rules that already exist within cannon and lore. So "This is good gameplay" is important, but its not a good enough reason on its own to include something.

Now, while TT is the root of this IP, I do understand that there is a lot of room in the gaps that can be better defined here. I rather like the idea of having unique turn rates and arcs for different mechs. Just as long as this doesn't stretch the internal consistencies of the universe too far.

This is only opinion. You think its not a good enough reason, while others do. This arguement boils down to mere opinions. Some based on book rules, and others based on actual gameplay. Who will win this arguement? The great struggle continues....


Support 360

[Aleksander Storm]

Major Bill Curtis, on 12 June 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Guessing that twist will be limited, despite many goofy arguments going on here.

Why?

Arms.

Making one fully-integrated aspect of the game completely superfluous with a speculative and wholly unnecessary gimmick is not good game design. Argue about that all you want: wiggle, gesticulate, and pontificate . . . dance if you like . . . 360 degree twist makes it much more difficult to justify other aspects of the game from the standpoint of a game.

Rationalize this however you like (my own favorite so far is the "clock" explanation; yes, sure, rotational mechanics at any scale means applicability in all situations . . . please never design an aircraft I fly on . . . seriously).

I also don't think the limit needs to be 60 degrees, as it was it TT; somewhere in the 90-120 range seems reasonable enough. In the end, this is a minor issue that creates more holes than it fills.

Please recall that TT had turrets

Solid rationalizing, there. It could be argued that it still doesn't counter the "only some 'Mechs" argument that is still at the heart of the supporters' stance. It's clear they don't want all 'Mechs to have it, just select ones, if the design works with it (like the Raven and Urbanmech examples, which are the very Light 'Mechs the opposition keep holding up as a reason not to have it).

I'd still rather make it impossible to fully spin around, regardless, but I do see the reasoning for 'Mechs that seem to have mere weapon pods, like said Raven and Urbie...

EDIT: Also, gotta love the opponents going off on the tangent about modern turrets, which may or may not have anything in common with BattleTech's 31st century turrets on quads and vehicles. Especially the 'bucket' concept relying on gravity- assuming nobody learned anything from making aircraft turrets.

Just pointing out the fallacies in both of your arguments. Try and clean them up (and also keep it clean), so you have a more solid footing on your stance...

Edited by Aleksander Storm, 12 June 2012 - 10:13 AM.

[Teralitha]

Right, back to front now... 360 way.

[Thomas Hogarth]

I'm going to leave the TT rulebooks off to the side for this post.

I'd like to see torso twisting limited in some fashion for two reasons: Limited twist means more hard tactical decisions have to be made. Do I turn to the right and expose my harder armor with the understanding that I'll have less twist range to work with, or do I turn to the left and show off my damaged side, but with more torso range to work with?

360 twist removes those questions, and worse still, makes running away a no-brainer. Brawling takes much less concentration on movement, and I claim that's a bad thing for a game trying to set itself apart from the horde of FPS shooters out there. Yes, there are a lot of mechanics that already do that, but the more the merrier.

Finally, I can totally get how electricity would be passed through a fully rotating assembly. These mechanics aren't difficult, and have been considered elementary by engineers for years. What I can't wrap my head around is how coolant pipes can be routed through a free-rotating assembly. You need at the very least two coolant conduits(feed and return), although more is highly likely(lower torso, each leg getting individual). I can see how it might be done through some rather complex wet joints, but at the temperatures coolant operates at, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Also, it seems like that would greatly reduce MTBF, and might reduce battle longevity by an unacceptable margin.

Now, the above thought is exactly what I thought the first time I saw a Mad Dog turn 360 in MW4. It broke immersion for me, and it broke immersion outside of a TT point of view. Breaking immersion is always bad in any game.

There you have my viewpoints as to why 360 twist should not be allowed. Will it make a difference? Will anything in this thread make a difference? Almost certainly not. We won't know which way PGI takes their design decision until it's released.

[Teralitha]

Why would legs need coolant? Majority of the heat comes from the engines and weapons.

The immersion factor is a toss. I never noticed 360 mechs until I tried driving one, and I got a thrill from it. I cant say I felt more 'immersed' but I can say I enjoyed piloting 360 mechs immensely.

Breaking immersion from an TT point of view should be happening to you in any online game that started as TT(AD&D for example) Heck I miss the immersion of the TT game too, but it doesnt mean I dont love playing the online games, at all. Online mechwarrior,a TT BT are 2 different games, that use the same lore. 2 DIFFERENT games.

Luckily, they are also making a game called Mechwarrior Tactics, which brings back the immersion of the tabletop experience, and I will be playing both games, but I DONT want them to be the same.


Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 12 June 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[mouzerius]

360 deg torso twists in a mech...... umm what about al those conections to power the leg systems.
we don`t talk about a simple 12 volts wire here people.

[Teralitha]

mouzerius, on 12 June 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

360 deg torso twists in a mech...... umm what about al those conections to power the leg systems.
we don`t talk about a simple 12 volts wire here people.

... uh read all the above posts.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Teralitha, on 12 June 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Why would legs need coolant? Majority of the heat comes from the engines and weapons.

The lore does state that coolant flows throughout the 'Mech. I know, I know, lore and all that. From another perspective, many 'Mechs have heat sinks in their legs. While I suppose one could say 'Mechs that 360 twist are not allowed to have HS in legs(and stock variants that have heat sinks in legs aren't eligible for 360 twist), that still does not address the tactical gameplay simplification concerns.

Teralitha, on 12 June 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

The immersion factor is a toss. I never noticed 360 mechs until I tried driving one, and I got a thrill from it. I cant say I felt more 'immersed' but I can say I enjoyed piloting 360 mechs immensely.

What immerses one person may not matter to another. It's purely subjective based on individual points of view. I claim that a well-designed game will try to immerse as wide an audience as possible. Limiting torso twist can remove immersion removal for people that think mechanically, and while that may limit the enjoyment of people that enjoy 360 twists, there are a huge number of other things that can bring enjoyment.

Basically, limiting torso movement won't kill the game for anyone, but allowing 360 can break immersion for others. Coupled with the enhanced skill development in managing torso twist, it's a net gain.

Teralitha, on 12 June 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Breaking immersion from an TT point of view should be happening to you in any online game. heck I miss the immersion of the TT game too, but it doesnt I dont love playing the online games.

My apologies, I should have made myself more clear. I meant immersion OUTSIDE of TT perspective. Immersion from a mechanical perspective, for example.

[Slyck]

Teralitha, on 12 June 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Why would legs need coolant? Majority of the heat comes from the engines and weapons.

And the myomers and jumpjets.

Quote

Breaking immersion from an TT point of view should be happening to you in any online game that started as TT(AD&D for example)

Why? Immersion isn't established by the mechanics of the game themselve, but by their synchronicity with setting. And both games are set jnthe same setting. 2 different games in 1 universe. And it's the univers which is key.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Slyck, on 12 June 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

And the myomers and jumpjets.

I forgot about myomers. That explains why coolant must be in every location - those things can get toasty.

[shortpainter]

If one mech gets 360 then all mechs should get 360. What point is there to divide such an ability considering that there is no rule to subjugate or determine, one way or the other, which mechs should or should not get it? Its not based on tonnage, chassis size, leg style, or anything logical if we are judging by past games. It came from novelists that took liberties with canon and then some fool put 360 rotation in MW4, thats all it was. Some argue that cannon should be let go or pushed aside for a real time simulator. Think of this, 360 rotation if far newer to the franchise, why not let go of that since it doesn't fit?

We may as well argue for unlimited ammo and no heat.

Edited by shortpainter, 12 June 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Teralitha]

Slyck, on 12 June 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

And the myomers and jumpjets.



Why? Immersion isn't established by the mechanics of the game themselve, but by their synchronicity with setting. And both games are set jnthe same setting. 2 different games in 1 universe. And it's the univers which is key.

Immersion is estblished by the atmosphere of the individual game, things like.... music... , graphics, storyline AND the game mechanics affect a computer game. While immersion in the TT game was largely dictated by how good your GM was... your fictional drama, and schematics onb paper, character sheets and all that.

Both have different criteria for immersion. but the good news is, your going to get the best of both worlds here, player sheets, cbills... pilot experience.... affecting the starmaps! roleplaying... and more.

But your gonna have to accept the fact that simulation lovers share this world, and they will get what they want too.



Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 12 June 2012 - 12:18 PM.