Cpt Beefheart, on 22 March 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:
In amongst this whole "derp derp derp, I don't want 3rd person herp derp" thing has come the disposition that the MWO is a simulator (I don't want to use 3rd person either, but I'll get to that later). Please kids, calm down, the Mechwarrior series are not simulators in the pure sense of the word, and I for one am thankful they are not.
Here's some features that simulators have, and how MWO and other games in the MW series compare.
Functional cockpits and micromanagement
So far, MWO has shown intention of displaying readouts on LCD screens in cockpits. However in simulators this is the primary feature of the game, and you spend more time looking at instruments than you do looking at your HUD, especially outside of combat. This is because, IRL, when piloting/driving a piece of machinery it is physically impossible to display every important piece of information, in its finer points, on a HUD, and it's more sensible to put detailed readouts (which you need when operating complex machines) on an instrument panel rather than cluttering the pilot's line of sight.
This also means micromanagement. In flight simulators this is air:fuel ratios, voltage, radar management, scopes, bomb/rocket timing, laser targeting and so on, which MW games do-not feature. IRL, it's feasible that a big stompy robot would still need a great deal of its human "brain" to manage such systems rather than leaving it to an AI which is likely to get damaged in combat.
If MWO was a simulator, you'll be spending more time looking away from the action, clicking on a control panel and pressing hot keys than you would be going *pew pew pew*.
Realistic weapon function and ammo storage
In the Battletech books and the TV series it's stated over and over again that LRMs and sSRMs are heat guided. Heat seeking missles require line of sight to function (infared doesn't necessarily travel through walls ect) and most also do-not have a "lock on" feature that specifies what target they home onto. Rather, they fly toward the closest hot object within their line of sight. Ones that do lock on are not as popular or functional as laser or radar guided missles for air combat, or as quick and easy as "fire and forget" missles for ground combat. Guided missiles in MWO act more like radar guided missiles in that they recuire a radar lock to function. Radar lock requires the pilot to specify which target the missile is to fly toward via a control panel. Even with an AI, there are many many things that show up on a radar, especially one scanning ground objects and it wouldn't be sensible to rely on a computer to identify friend from foe and lock on automatically. Even in the future, relying purely on an AI to make this distinction when it could be damaged in combat it's more likely there would be more pilot input to missle lock than there is in MWO. This is especcially when battlemechs still require a neurohelmet to determine balance due to limited AI, and the nurohelmet has nothing to do with targeting. I can't see A1 fans enjoying themselves constantly having to look at a radar scope to achieve a lock as they would if this were a simulation.
In terms of interface, modern missiles don't feature a fancy graphic to display a lock. They are simple so as to not distract the operator (yeah, the military industrial complex is weird like that) and it's not likely that even an advanced weapons platform from the future would see fancy graphics as much of an improvement. Boxes that interpret radar readings onto a HUD (target boxes) do not chance size IRL so they can be easily identified by the pilot. Milliseconds count in combat, and it's more sensible to have a box that is the same size every time no matter the distance to the target so the pilot doesn't have to scan for a tiny little box representing an enemy in the distance. MWO's target boxes change in size depending on the distance to the target, and it's not exactly an improvement to the modern system which has simple displays for a reason.
Furthermore, most missiles do-not cause "splash damage" and the force of impact is forward of the missile. The fireball from a missile impact is excess fuel burning and is about as harmful to the target as flame from a matchstick.
What also makes the MW series completely unrealistic is the fact you can store hunking great big shells of ammunition in the legs of your mech, and it's somehow able to navigate its way through all the moving parts of the legs, hips, engine and shoulders into a cannon located in the arms without the mech having to stop moving to avoid a jam and without having to add extra parts.
Newtonian physics, ballistics and weather
Simulation games pride themselves on their engines being based almost completely on Newton's laws and the effects of weather. For example, if you were driving a high speed tank and fire a shell with the turret at 90 degrees, the shell would travel along with the tank as well as outward from it, in a slight curve. Wind would also affect the projectile no matter how heavy it is. Ballistics weapons in MWO do not do this and travel more in a straight line if they're fired while moving than they do a curve.
Another example of MWO not being true to physics is that 90 tonnes of steel is able to travel at 100+ kmh and come to a complete stop without the weight of its torso causing it to topple over. If MWO was a true simulator maneuvering your giant robot of death would be far more difficult than it already is, and the models wouldn't look nearly as nice as designs would have to be altered to make them more stable in a real world environment.
Weather would also affect the maneuverability of your mech. For example, in the Frozen City, your giant Atlas would be swaying side to side in a blizzard, making it not only hard to walk in a straight line, but also making it harder to keep your targeting sight steady as your mech is blown about. Also, in a similar scenario to the "90 tonnes moving at 100+ kph" mentioned before, a Dragon (for example) which is capable of moving at these speeds with the right engine would find itself skating across the ice and tripping over in the snow, making it not much fun at all.
Realistic damage
So far the only "realistic damage" that occurs in MWO is that your mech loses limbs and weapons. Hits to the engine do not affect the mech's performance and hits to the head do not affect your computer, radar or any componants in that area. Both (true) flight simulators and driving simulators feature damage that affect the performance of your machine. Damage to the front and center of your jet fighter, for example, result in computer components shutting down, loss of radar, instrument malfunctions and so on. Hits to the wings cause fuel fires and loss of control surfaces. Logically, "legging" a mech would not only cause it to move slower and limp along, but will also cause it to become unstable and sway as the gyro and AI compensates for the loss of strengh in the affected leg.
So far, there has been intention to have this sort of damage, but in my mind at least, this is where the "simulation" aspect begins and ends for MWO.
If MWO was a true simulator, with real world aspects taken into account, you might be spending hours, if not days, waiting for your mech to be repaired for the next battle. How about realistic death? Eve online (although not a true simulator) features Pod death which can be disasterously frustrating for the victim. Of course, there's no clones per-se in the BT universe (except for the Clans), so the logical conclusion for an IS pilot not ejecting in time before his battlemech is reduced to a pile of bubbling iron-oxide is the account is locked and he has to start again from scratch.
Input from experts
Yes, this game has been given the blessing of Jordan Weisman and the Devs were/have been working in collaberation with him on how the rules and concepts of MWO work. However, simulation games spend a great deal of time working with real life experts on how machines function and what it's like to operate them. Logically, the people PGI should be also colaborating with to create a simulation of giant combat robots are tank crews, fighter pilots and the guys from DARPA. To my knowledge, there is not a single person assisting the development of the game who has ever operated a tank, flown a fighter jet or designed a combat robot.
Furthermore, simulators are often intended and used as training software for drivers and pilots. Even EA's F1 simulator is used by F1 drivers at home in the off season to keep their skills sharp while their car is being built/tuned. Lockon: Modern Air Combat is a famous simulator which was designed with members of the Russian military and also later used by the Russians in their own simulators.
Bottom line
Let's look at some actual simulators out there. No, I'm not talking X-Wing, Ace Combat and so on. They are pure fantasy arcade style games. What I'm talking about is the *real* simulators which feature every aspect of the "real thing" which includes the bordom of starting up the machine, navigating it to where it needs to go, firing a few shots before turning around and going home, as well as the stress/terror of micromanaging everything you're doing while trying to kill someone who is trying to kill you. Games like Lockon, Orbiter and Silent Service... three of the most drab and boring games out there.
As WWII pilots said "flying a fighter is hours of bordom mixed with seconds of horror" and simulators are exactly that - Simulators are boring and frustrating with steep learning curves and hours of tutorials before playing missions where you navigate somewhere doing nothing before being killed in a few seconds.
Thank f%$k the MWO is not a simulator. It would not be nearly as fun as it is now, and people would drop it in a matter of minutes in frustration. If anything, MWO is, in my opinion, an FPS that feels like a simulator even though it isn't one in the true sense. But it is this that makes me love the game. I like the degree of immersion that occurs when your view is limited to that of your cockpit. I like not being able to see around corners, and the ability to hide behind smoke and behind buildings knowing that while I might know where the enemy is, they can't see me, I can't see them and either of us could move at any second. It's the thinking ahead and planning, the flowing and change of tactics that, win or lose, is where the fun lies for me and I pity anyone who wants to play in 3rd person as they'll never get this experience.
~~~~~ TLDR ~~~~~
Call MWO for what it is: it's an FPS, it's an MMO, it's a build/customisation game, it's a team game and this is where the fun and challenge is. But please don't call it a simulator. Simulators are cr4p boring frustratingly difficult games.
I'm going to quote the entire thing because It's fun to repeat your giant blocks of text. Just because you typed a decently written (but incorrect) wall of text doesn't mean you're entitled to call everyone else's short comments about 3rd person "herp derp". Your post contains more herpderp than all of that combined.
The point of not wanting 3rd person has NOTHING WHATSOEVER with wanting MWO to be a "simulator"...it's about the fact that 3rd person breaks the game in that 3rd person implemented in the wrong way makes 3PV vastly superior to FPV for gameplay. Meaning, why bother designing all these unique cockpits? Why bother with the startup sequence? It's the same as the heat vision modes...why bother making all these pretty mechs if you're going to make a chiefly blue colored view the best way to spot enemies? It shows the developers are possibly confused about what kind of game they're making.
But really, the fact that you think MWO is an MMO shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing "massive" about MWO's multiplayer.
But, just as you can bend the definition for MMO, MWO can bend the definition of simulator. /thread
0
