366 replies to this topic

[Stormeris]

Torso twisting is overrated, look at the Scorpion or Goliath, they don't need no stinkin' torso turnin'

[Gorith]

CCC Dober, on 11 June 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Some people either can't or don't want to cope with going one way, while looking in the opposite direction. Now they are cockblocking and pull all kinds of references to get their word in. Kinda hilarious xDDD

Trolling or are you really so blind as to not see the balance issue that 360 twist causes when it's on a heavier chassis vs a lighter chassis?

[CCC Dober]

Gorith, on 11 June 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

Trolling or are you really so blind as to not see the balance issue that 360 twist causes when it's on a heavier chassis vs a lighter chassis?

I'd point to my posts on the matter at hand (see above) to enlighten you. You have all the information you need and more besides. Maybe you could try to find fault with them before you throw wild accusations left and right when in fact you have no counter and try to attack people personally. Thank you very much.

[Uberwilhelm]

Not a fan personally. I'm happy with 90 degrees each way,

[Egomane]

CCC Dober, on 11 June 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Some people either can't or don't want to cope with going one way, while looking in the opposite direction. Now they are cockblocking and pull all kinds of references to get their word in. Kinda hilarious xDDD

This has nothing to do with why we are against a 360° torso twist.

Do you remember the missions within cities in MW2:Mercs? How many times do you think I ran into a building when I looked the other way? I'll tell you... never! With a speed modded Jenner and torso twisting left and right I could run circles through those towns and never bump into anything. Yet I am against a 360° twist.

Keep looking for arguments why we don't want to, maybe one day you'll find out that it has balancing reasons. You may not see it because it worked so fine in MW4 (more arcade then simulation, mechs overall behavior is not what is canon in the BT-Universe) but it is a game breaker in a game where all mechs, no matter the weight, shall, by the will of the developers, remain playable.

Come on... how would you balance it? No one who is in favor of a 360° twist has mentioned any way to balance it, except to limit it to certain mechs. That is not balancing!

Edited by Egomane, 11 June 2012 - 06:16 AM.

[Tazerx]

it would be kind of weird to turn 360 unless on a mech that is more of a mobile missile platform than anything

[Mechteric]

I always found the 360 degree twist to be arbitrarily picked for certain mechs anyway. IMO It should either be allowed on all mechs, or none at all. Personally I'd prefer no 360 twisting at all.

[Roland]

Can't agree with you there, Capper.

I certainly wouldn't want to see it on all mechs, because in that case it really does result in an overall disadvantage to any mech who relies mainly on mobility.

But in specific cases, it can add flavor to a particular chassis which might otherwise be overlooked.

[Gorith]

CCC Dober, on 11 June 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

I'd point to my posts on the matter at hand (see above) to enlighten you. You have all the information you need and more besides. Maybe you could try to find fault with them before you throw wild accusations left and right when in fact you have no counter and try to attack people personally. Thank you very much.

It's so obvious why it's a balance issue... but very well I will explain.

Firstly it removes a weakness from any chassis that has it.
Also when your talking about MWO in particular as I have already stated the devs are trying to encourage people to use all the weight classes and not just the ones that have the most firepower and armor. Part of the defence used against a larger opponent is by maximizing the amount of time you are in their weapon arc deadzone (And yes you can with proper throttle control and decent predictive skills do this) a mech with 360 twist has no dead zone to try to stay in and basically becomes a mobile turret capable of firing at anything within their line of sight.

Lets also go with the fact that unless you get majorly outflanked it becomes much easier to expose less damaged facings of your mech (while waiting on weapon cycles). Without 360 if your flanked properly you can not do this nearly as easy

[Roland]

Gorith, on 11 June 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

It's so obvious why it's a balance issue... but very well I will explain.

Firstly it removes a weakness from any chassis that has it.

But you see the issue with your perspective here?
You're absolutely right that it removes a weakness from a particular chassis. That's exactly why it can be used to add flavor and utility to a chassis which might otherwise be under-used.

That's why it doesn't make sense to say that you would never want to see it. In certain cases, it could be used as a mechanism to add balance. Without knowing the specifics of the chassis that have it, you can't really evaluate whether or not they should have it.

You seem to be arguing that in certain cases it would be bad because it would make a chassis too strong. I certainly agree... I wouldn't want an atlas to have it, for instance. But the answer to that is to simply not give such a capability to that particular chassis.

[Egomane]

So Roland, what would be your reasons to give it to a mech. Given the fact, that you can modify movement speed, armor and weapons those things shouldn't factor in.

The only thing left is the frame or the yet to be reveiled modules. What kind of frame or module space would you give the ability to twist all the way around and why?

[SeniCuna]

I don't think anyone should be surprised to see varying degrees of twist on a mech to mech basis.

As for full 360..?
Yes you could balance it a slower twist speed, and having it only on certain mechs ( Could definitely count that as balancing depending on the mech. ) but I feel as though it makes the game more tactical without it. ( I don't see balancing as a reason for not having it in / having it in, I feel the devs could make it work either way. )
It's not gonna make or break things either way, as some have said. I personally won't mind seeing it in if it is, it's just a matter of varying how I approach / engage said mech. At the same time, varying twist speeds and degrees of twist would bring about the same variation in how I engage. A limitation like no 360 degree torso twist to work against provides just as much variety, if not more so when combined with variances in the amount of twist and speed of twist.
Also, for the record, I don't think we're gonna see, nor should anyone expect to see, total adherence to the TT rules, and that's not a bad thing. A hybrid between the foundation of the old and new creativity / innovation is gonna bring about something new, and something better for all of us, it's a blend more people should be happy about.

Edited by SeniCuna, 11 June 2012 - 07:16 AM.

[JazzySteel]

Jenner twisted at least 180 degrees in the Light mech preview

[Roland]

Egomane, on 11 June 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

So Roland, what would be your reasons to give it to a mech. Given the fact, that you can modify movement speed, armor and weapons those things shouldn't factor in.

The only thing left is the frame or the yet to be reveiled modules. What kind of frame or module space would you give the ability to twist all the way around and why?

Without knowing the specifics of a given chassis, it's impossible to determine which would "need" it. It would just be another factor thrown in to balance them against each other.

Purely as a hypothetical though, you could perhaps give such a capability to a chassis which had a slow torso twist.. or one with a weak selection of hardpoints. Remember, you aren't able to fully customize a mech's weapons to load up anything you could possibly want. Other considerations could be chassis geometry.

There are tons of different combinations of factors that go into a mech. Max twist angle is just another factor.

[Egomane]

Roland, on 11 June 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

Purely as a hypothetical though, you could perhaps give such a capability to a chassis which had a slow torso twist.. or one with a weak selection of hardpoints. Remember, you aren't able to fully customize a mech's weapons to load up anything you could possibly want. Other considerations could be chassis geometry.

There are tons of different combinations of factors that go into a mech. Max twist angle is just another factor.

We have already seen, that the devs modify the hardpoints somewhat. Or else the Hunchback wouldn't be able to mount two lasers on each arm. So I guess that will be adressed already.

If you take twisting speed into consideration you have to also adress overall turning speeds of the mech if it should have full twisting capability, because the two things add up. You cannot do that to most light mechs (except maybe the urbanmech) or they will become unusable against almost anything, so we come back to the heavier chassis, were we eliminate a weak point a light mech has to exploit if it shall remain viable against said chassis.

Just to make it clear, as it may seem like I am against anything new. I am not!

I can see the reason for doubling the mechs armor, for example. It will make the fights take longer and it will prevent most one shot kills. So overall we get more playing.

I can also see good use in the addition of modules to specialise your mechs for certain roles.

But I can see no good reason to add something to the game just so we add something. It should have meaning but shouldn't be overkill at the same time. I can see a 180° twist for some mechs. Even so it is not in the rules, it could replace the, so far missing, flipping arms.

[Roland]

Quote

If you take twisting speed into consideration you have to also adress overall turning speeds of the mech if it should have full twisting capability, because the two things add up. You cannot do that to most light mechs (except maybe the urbanmech) or they will become unusable against almost anything, so we come back to the heavier chassis, were we eliminate a weak point a light mech has to exploit if it shall remain viable against said chassis.

I think you're failing to consider that it's just one factor among many. You don't need to always pair it with slow torso twist.

For instance, the Raven in MW4 had 360 degree torso twist.. it also had great sensors. But its weapon hardpoints were fairly weak compared to many mechs.

[Teralitha]

Carl Wrede, on 10 June 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

There is also no point in adding stuff that clearly goes against canon just for the sake of adding stuff. 360 degree torso twist is not adding anything desirable and it goes directly against canon.

360 ... is desireable, for all the reasons Ive already stated in previous posts.

[Teralitha]

Meldarth Sunphot, on 11 June 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

Everyone keeps bringing up MW4 which is frustrating as while MW4 isn't as badly bastardized as Mech Assault games.....its much more arcady than MW3 and Legendary MW2 - those two tried to stay close to cannon and had no 360 twist.

Honestly way the Devs have said they are staying as close to cannon as possibly - means no 360; and honestly its a good thing as if you threw this on light mech; you make it far more dangerous than it was; makes circle jerking so easy that its not funny.......

Devs have also said they are not going for arcady; but simulation........while some say piloting a 360 mech is harder; I say no its easier.......it takes more skill to pilot something with smaller turning to make sure to keep your back from being pumelled; also not being about to know where your enemy is at all times.

So no; 360 in this game I think would be way too powerful.......please remember; what works in an arcade style game.....does not usually translate well into a simulation style game......

You obviously never piloted a 360 mech before. Its a higher learning curve in piloting. Think of ice skating backwards... it requires more skill.

So yes, 360 isnt too powerful, unless your really really really good. And that is what your really afraid of isnt it... ace pilots able to do something proficiently that you cannot....and getting owned.

Edited by Teralitha, 11 June 2012 - 08:09 AM.

[Egomane]

MW4 is not a viable answer, because it changed nearly everything to something else. Weapons didn't do the damage they were supposed to, weight and space rules of components were over simplified by the hardpoint system and armor was an, at best, abstract thing (can be wrong on the last one, it's been years since I last played).

It may have played great, but at its core it was very, very far from all the battletech rules regarding mech creation and the original balancing of the different game aspects. Something PGI said they don't want to do. They want to stay close to those rules. So were do we fit in a 360° twist, within the original rules set this new game will be based on?

Teralitha, on 11 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

And that is what your really afraid of isnt it... ace pilots able to do something proficiently that you cannot....and getting owned.

Out of arguments or why do you start attacking at a personal level?

Edited by Egomane, 11 June 2012 - 08:14 AM.

[Teralitha]

Gorith, on 11 June 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

Trolling or are you really so blind as to not see the balance issue that 360 twist causes when it's on a heavier chassis vs a lighter chassis?

There is no issue. in mw4 where 360 existed, there never was an issue, so here is your tissue...

I swear these TT fans would rather have the game dumbed down to their level....

Edited by Teralitha, 11 June 2012 - 08:14 AM.