105 replies to this topic

[N0ni]

Steadfast, on 04 April 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

Yes please, C.A.S.E. up, right besides your XL Engin... wait...

It works with standard engines. Class dismissed.

[Joseph Mallan]

Loxx, on 04 April 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

the OP is right actually if you go by TT rules.

Ammo had a restriction of being stored in the same location as the weapon or an adjacent location like the left torso to the left arm to allow for ammo transfer. It couldn't be stored in the legs because there was no hollow, armored points to get it past the hip actuators/torso rotators.

With that said: It's possible in MWO because it makes it more fun.

Sir there are mechs that feed Ammo from the left torso to the right arm on TT. In fact the Clint (iirc) complained of this very issue cause the ammo had to cross the body to feed the AC.

[Vassago Rain]

On a more serious note, this is indeed because of a series of tubes, that varies from mech to mech.

Lorewise, orions are really good with this, while wasps and atlases are really complicated and prone to malfunctions. Rulewise, why not?

[CarnifexMaximus]

The ammo in the legs used to bug me back in 1996 while playing mech2. The ammo is not stored in it's feet, closer to the hip I think.

I am at work right now so i cant really post pictures but I there is a cutaway picture of an Atlas showing all its innards that is always helpful to look at.

When we get our hands on the Orion it makes more sense. That thing is so spacious inside you could probably put a cheap county fair roller coaster inside of it.

[OneEyed Jack]

Darius Deadeye, on 04 April 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

Video games with no aspects of realism, boundaries, rule sets, limitations = what exactly?

All games need restrictions to make gameplay viable, balanced and appealing to all.

Last I checked there were rules and limitations. Just because they aren't the stupid, arbitrary rules you want doesn't mean they don't exist.

Darius Deadeye, on 04 April 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

The biggest problem with freedom (in a non-looting system) is how it invites a large majority of players to play exactly the same, using whichever chassis or build gives you the most edge/advantage. Thus making (in part, due to freedom of choice) many builds obsolete within the gameplay boundaries.

What the freedom does is allow people to find builds that fit their own play-style, which is why there are numerous different builds out there. People copy successful builds because they don't have the skills, time and/or imagination to create their own, not because freedom limits their choices. Or people working separately come to the same conclusion because there are really only a few variables.

[Disapirro]

Its actually just the powder stored in the legs. As the powder is sucked up via a vacuum tube, it gets assembled with the casing and the round by the elves stored in the torso. ; /

[JSmith7784]

I know there are some mechs, very few mechs, that rare designed to carry ammo in the legs. I know it was allowed in earlier mechwarrior games.

I'm not trying to troll or complain about the game. So far I love this game and am very happy with how it is progressing. We are talking about 25 to 100 ton walking robots almost 1,000 years into the future so I know technology will be much different. It just seems to me that ammo in the legs shouldn't be possible if all your weapons are in the arms or upper torso. Like the TT rules.

From an engineering perspective it wouldn't make sense to store the ammo in the legs. Ammo is sensitive to extreme shock or vibrations, which would both occur to extremes in the legs. Second why store ammo so far from whene it is needed and then have to design a complicated and probably prone to jamming mechanism to move the ammo to the weapon. No engineer 1,000 years from now would design a battle ready mech and intentionally add a loading system like that.

Edited by JSmith7784, 04 April 2013 - 08:28 PM.

[Ryvucz]

Science - Fiction

People should really think long and hard about comparing games to the real world.

[Syllogy]

Because Magic.

This is Mechwarrior. It works, leave it alone.

[valkyrie]

People seem to neglect the fact that realistically speaking, a Raven shouldn't be able to carry a Gauss Rifle or AC/20 either without constantly walking in circles assuming it didn't just fall over entirely.

Anyway, I'm not too concerned with it. Why? Because people are stupid and will trim armor from their legs to get more ammo or heatsinks, but then go "I'LL PUT AMMO IN MY LEGS, I'M SO CLEVER"

Then I walk up to them with my Jagermech and this happens every time without fail:


Works for me.

[Roland]

A TRIVIAL ASPECT OF MY GIANT ROBOT IS UNREALISTIC.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

Darius Deadeye, on 04 April 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

Video games with no aspects of realism, boundaries, rule sets, limitations = what exactly?

All games need restrictions to make gameplay viable, balanced and appealing to all.

The biggest problem with freedom (in a non-looting system) is how it invites a large majority of players to play exactly the same, using whichever chassis or build gives you the most edge/advantage. Thus making (in part, due to freedom of choice) many builds obsolete within the gameplay boundaries.

I thought some extra logic in a mad illogical world of BT would be nice.. But I don't insist. Though my mind is long time OK with the giant mechs of extremely light weigh for their size and much more toughness than their attacking power (which is pretty fantastic, to have defense superior to weapons), but it hurts my mind to visualize how the AC shells travel from,say, left leg to the cannon in the right arm. I don't want to dump the logic completely in those points where the initial BT universe held to it. It's the logical nature of all surrounding (and partially internal) stuff, that makes illogical parts fit and be cool.

But still game-wise, it is fun to see people gambling with the ammo in legs. I even tried it myself, but no, thanks, not worth it.

Edited by Duncan Jr Fischer, 04 April 2013 - 09:24 PM.

[Iscariott]

Removing leg ammo storage would actually be a large buff to single heat sinks. But only for mechs that use ammo.

[Wintersdark]

Darius Deadeye, on 04 April 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

Like with weapons etc, PGI (and BT Tabletop), have decided not to adhere to any form of realism and rather focus on freedom through customization options, in which most people go for the 'best variant' with 'most cheesy build available' solution anyway.

Darius Deadeye, on 04 April 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

Video games with no aspects of realism, boundaries, rule sets, limitations = what exactly?

All games need restrictions to make gameplay viable, balanced and appealing to all.

The biggest problem with freedom (in a non-looting system) is how it invites a large majority of players to play exactly the same, using whichever chassis or build gives you the most edge/advantage. Thus making (in part, due to freedom of choice) many builds obsolete within the gameplay boundaries.

Ok, pay close attention here, I'll try to be brief.

This comes up a lot. Not just here, but any game with customization.

The problems you note - with cheese builds, optimization, etc? They will exist regardless of how much customization there is. You can change what builds are valid, but they best builds will still be regarded as cheese, and the worst will still be trash builds. It doesn't matter how close the difference is.

Back in my days playing a long running and absurdly popular MMO, which will remain nameless, it was common to see people being berated for having a "terribad" build for their character because they had 1% less damage due to missing a talent, or half a percent of a crit, or whatever else. Yes, 1% damage is 1% damage, and sometimes it will make a difference, but far more often it's statistically irrelevant. Still, cries of cheese/OP/UP/etc continued, and do to this day.

Long ago, you'd get called cheesy (or whatever) because you used a certain fighter in a fighting game, or because you used a particular move too often.

You can never fix "cheese" while player choices exist. Period. All you do when you restrict choice is change what's considered cheese - and, of course, reduce the variety available in the game too.

Iscariott, on 04 April 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Removing leg ammo storage would actually be a large buff to single heat sinks. But only for mechs that use ammo.

No.

Barring some assaults, practically everyone uses Endosteel anyways, you'd just have the 4 leg slots going to Structure.

Even without that, it would be a *tiny* buss to SHS, but not nearly enough to make them not absolutely horrible.

[Wizard Steve]

Copycat threads are lame.

[Merky Merc]

Because no system in BT is "logical" or even slightly realistic, that's why.

Grayseven, on 04 April 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

Why was ammo stored in the wings of WW2 fighter planes? Because that's where the space was.

Your use of real world examples only reinforces the OPs point, those WW2 fighter planes also had their guns in the wings. Tanks keep their ammo in the turret, IFVs keep it in the turret, jets keep it in the cannons magazine (in a body that doesn't contort or twist mind you).

You don't need to even try to use real world examples though, BT is magic.

[Wintersdark]

JSmith7784, on 04 April 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

From an engineering perspective it wouldn't make sense to store the ammo in the legs. Ammo is sensitive to extreme shock or vibrations, which would both occur to extremes in the legs. Second why store ammo so far from whene it is needed and then have to design a complicated and probably prone to jamming mechanism to move the ammo to the weapon. No engineer 1,000 years from now would design a battle ready mech and intentionally add a loading system like that.

Seriously. Huge bipedal war machines are terrible. They're so deeply flawed that this is such a trivial issue it's not worth paying any attention to.

Edit: But the above flaws are OK, because SPACE MAGIC AND AWESOME.

I'm a huge, huge BT fan. Since the beginning. I love it all. Just... Don't try to apply realism here. It's not good.


Space magic and awesome are all you need.

Edited by Wintersdark, 04 April 2013 - 09:53 PM.

[Taemien]

Dead Eye 01, on 04 April 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

Because two crit spaces per leg.

This.

There are canon variants with ammo in the legs. Due to the way mechs are constructed, typically legs include the pelvis of the mech which is where some space is left (crits) and ammo can be stored there. It makes sense because its easier to eject ammo from that location if needed.

But in MWO the pelvis isn't part of the legs for hit locations for balance reasons. This community prefers a notion of balance (as evident by the rage threads on a weekly basis) so this pretty much ends this debate.

[BlightFang]

This is the future where ammo is now more technologically advanced. Not only can it transfer seamlessly from your legs to your gun, you can also shoot out all your ammo and after your depleted ammo container is shot and destroyed, it can still explode and destroy your mech.

[BoPop]

JSmith7784, on 04 April 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

How could missle or large ballistic rounds possibly be stored then moved from the legs, which are moving themselves, without constand loading jams etc?

well, the real question is, why would any civilization use mechs for warfare in the first place? tanks, jets, missiles and marines are pretty awesome. imagine if America started making mechs, we'd be like wtf? are we doing this just to look cool now?

but remember, this is a game with lasers and particle projection cannons. EXTENDED RANGE particle projection canons for when ya really want to project some particles really far away.

come on bro. we stick ammo in our feet just cuz.