366 replies to this topic

[Sychodemus]

Grendel408, on 12 June 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

'Mechs for the most part were built to represent a humanoid figure... can you twist your waste 360 degrees? No.. you'd break your spine... 'Mechs don't have spines... but they are limited (not just because of the TT rules as you stated) for a purpose, and those goes with game balancing...

Why are you directing this statement at me?

Okay...

1) Bipedal is not necessarily the same thing as humanoid.
2) My statement regarding the purpose of torso-twisting in tabletop specifically indicated that it doesn't have to mean actual rotation.
3) You infer that I support 360° rotation. I do not.
4) I forgive you.

Oh, and just to be nice to everybody: When talking about degrees (temperature, circles, etc) please press and hold down the ALT button and type 0176 on your number pad. Thank you.

[Scarlett Avignon]

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

But in terms of gameplay balancing, torso twist isn't a weakness, a pro/con of a certain mech if every mech has the same limitations.

If it's not a weakness to have a blindspot in your weapon's arcs, then why make mechs able to twist around 360 degrees? You're trying to fix a weakness that, by your own admission/definition, isn't even there.

9th. Give it a rest, bud. All you have to say is, "I'm used to it, and I think it's cool." Trying to make a logical argument for it somehow making the game harder is silly, and making you look bad.

[Gorith]

Ok heres something to chew on for those arguing it makes sense from a simulation standpoint.

We are simulating a fictional world so to get the purest simulation of that would you not want to do so using the technology of said world. Including the tech limitations. Since it makes so much tactical sense to have that advantage if possible one could assume that their inventors have not yet figured out how to make it happen since it does not canonically exist?

Edited by Gorith, 12 June 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[BFalcon]

I think people need to stop and remember how a mech "works". The neurohelmet takes feedback from the pilot to auto-adjust the balance of the mech. For this to actually work, the mech needs to work in much the same way as a human body, or the feedback from the pilot would be wrong. In addition, all movement is done via myomer fibre-bundles, meaning "muscles". A muscle cannot cope with 360° twists usually. The only mech I remember reading about doing a 180° twist was a Rifleman (Justin Xiang's in Solaris) and this could be argued away as a mech-specific ability - given that the Rifleman is pretty much designed for anti-air and anti-light use.

From a game balance perspective, you need to look at two facts (as I understand them): 1) When you die, you will be sitting out for the rest of the match and 2) players (myself included) tend to get size-fixated, nudging up from Lights to Mediums, Mediums to Heavies and then trying to resist going for those tasty Assaults. The third point is that, as players, we want to see Lights and Mediums out there on the battlefield. If an Assault or Heavy mech is able to track a Light all the way around (let's say an Atlas being orbited by a Locust), then that Light is in trouble. As things stand on the TT version, the Light has to play a dangerous game of "run, dodge, stay within the rear arc and pray like hell you don't screw up" since one hit from any of the Atlas' weapons would probably spread that Locust all over the terrain.

Lights and Mediums need some love too - we don't want all-mighty Assaults or you'll be losing the majority of the mechs actually piloted out there - the vast majority SHOULD be Light or Medium class with the "muscle" units being Heavies - the Assaults should be like hens' teeth and a real prize when you to pilot one. If you do not need to worry about maneuverability, then what use have we for anythng lighter than a heavy?

[Paewen]

BFalcon, on 12 June 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

I think people need to stop and remember how a mech "works". The neurohelmet takes feedback from the pilot to auto-adjust the balance of the mech. For this to actually work, the mech needs to work in much the same way as a human body, or the feedback from the pilot would be wrong. In addition, all movement is done via myomer fibre-bundles, meaning "muscles". A muscle cannot cope with 360° twists usually. The only mech I remember reading about doing a 180° twist was a Rifleman (Justin Xiang's in Solaris) and this could be argued away as a mech-specific ability - given that the Rifleman is pretty much designed for anti-air and anti-light use.

From a game balance perspective, you need to look at two facts (as I understand them): 1) When you die, you will be sitting out for the rest of the match and 2) players (myself included) tend to get size-fixated, nudging up from Lights to Mediums, Mediums to Heavies and then trying to resist going for those tasty Assaults. The third point is that, as players, we want to see Lights and Mediums out there on the battlefield. If an Assault or Heavy mech is able to track a Light all the way around (let's say an Atlas being orbited by a Locust), then that Light is in trouble. As things stand on the TT version, the Light has to play a dangerous game of "run, dodge, stay within the rear arc and pray like hell you don't screw up" since one hit from any of the Atlas' weapons would probably spread that Locust all over the terrain.

Lights and Mediums need some love too - we don't want all-mighty Assaults or you'll be losing the majority of the mechs actually piloted out there - the vast majority SHOULD be Light or Medium class with the "muscle" units being Heavies - the Assaults should be like hens' teeth and a real prize when you to pilot one. If you do not need to worry about maneuverability, then what use have we for anythng lighter than a heavy?

The rifleman in question didn't rotate it's torso 180 degrees, it rotated it's arms up and over to point behind it.

Bad idea to have unlimited torso twist. That is one of the prime tactics in finghting heavey mechs with light mechs. Run around till the enemy can't twist any more then shoot in the back. Hope the heavies have their teammates around to keep the lights off em.

[Sychodemus]

While lighters units tend to be faster and thus more maneuverable (in this context) there is - and always has been - a major motivating factor for their use:

They are cheaper than the heavier ones.

[BFalcon]

Paewen, on 12 June 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

The rifleman in question didn't rotate it's torso 180 degrees, it rotated it's arms up and over to point behind it.

Bad idea to have unlimited torso twist. That is one of the prime tactics in finghting heavey mechs with light mechs. Run around till the enemy can't twist any more then shoot in the back. Hope the heavies have their teammates around to keep the lights off em.

I thought it torso-twisted 180, flipped its arms and then walked in - I'll have to reread that now.

Yeah - I'm really hoping that the agility of the Lights will make them useable for just that purpose.

IMO, anyone actually wanting 360° twist is either an assault pilot who wants to eliminate the only weakness it has, or is more insane than Romano Liao...

Sychodemus, on 12 June 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

While lighters units tend to be faster and thus more maneuverable (in this context) there is - and always has been - a major motivating factor for their use:

They are cheaper than the heavier ones.

That's almost sig-worthy...

Very true, but I just know that some players will be looking to invest as much as they possibly can to get the biggest, meanest mech they can afford.

[9thFarShot]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 June 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

If it's not a weakness to have a blindspot in your weapon's arcs, then why make mechs able to twist around 360 degrees? You're trying to fix a weakness that, by your own admission/definition, isn't even there.

You misread that quote. Let me say it as if I were speaking:

But in terms of gameplay balancing, torso twist isn't a weakness *pause* (a pro/con) *end pause* of a certain mech if every mech has the same limitations.

So it *isn't* a weakness in terms of balance if every mech has the same issue. In other words, if I were comparing two mechs in terms of balance:

Mad Cat:

Pros:

- jump jets

- nice speed

- diverse weapons hardpoints

Cons:

- armor less than others in its weight class

- large cockpit

- overheating issues due to number of missiles and beam weapons

Flea:

Pros:

- small cockpit

- high speed

- excellent heat management

Cons:

- no jump jets

- limited weapons

- limited armoring

...there's no point mentioning torso turn limits because they aren't factors. However, by adding capabilities for certain mechs to have full rotation capability, you add to the tactical decision making that occurs during fights. Variety is the spice of life. Imagine if MWO debuted with only the one battle map we see in the class demonstration videos. Maybe some players would try out MWO for a week, then leave thinking they've experienced everything and are bored. Adding more variety to mech capabilities only adds to the excitement.

Now as for the argument that 360 degree rotation makes it easier, well I'd like to contend the opposite. When you only have a 180 degree arc of rotation, at least you can still see where you are going for the most part. Tactically, the disadvantage of being able to face behind you is that now you might run off a cliff or into an Atlas while you're busy harassing a Catapult.

Also, I've seen few if any of the people on the supporting side saying to give full rotation to every single mech. Even the original poster said, "Will we see some mechs with 360?"

[shortpainter]

What or who determines which mechs get 360 rotation?

[UncleKulikov]

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

You aren't considering the gameplay dynamic that 360 torso twist would introduce. If I can torso twist 360, I can shoot at a pursuer with my full arsenal while only exposing my most armored sections.

[9thFarShot]

...which is why it would be nice for light mechs. I am not advocating this for mechs that would be overpowered with it. Giving an urbanmech 360 degree torso twist would not make it the king of the battlefield by any means. It might, however, make it a more viable mech to play as.

As for who determines which mechs get 360 degree rotation? Gee, I don't know, perhaps the game developers in charge of giving the mechs their stats? I think the mechs that had 360 degree rotation in MW4 might be a good start. It definitely didn't break the game.

As for the purists who still think that this somehow violates the way mechs are controlled...
Mechs have complicated gyros for a reason. They maintain balance. Not humans. Human minds can be tricked. Ever get hit hard enough in the head to get a concussion? It messes up your balance. If you make a mech depend on our flawed bodies to stand up, something is wrong with you. It takes a few simple lines of code to get a mechanical arm with a sensor attached to balance a pencil on end. I'd much rather trust a computer to keep my mech standing than a few tubes of fluid in my ears.

Again, the advantages of rebooting a franchise is that you can clear away some of the useless drivel that strangles the universe to death. This over-reliance on outdated tech that was drawn up decades ago for a table top game is going to drown MWO if every single tech brief is followed to the letter. JJ Abrams did a damn good job rebooting Trek by shedding some of the useless treknobabble, and likewise so did Ronald D. Moore and friends with Battlestar Galactica. I'd like to see the same done with the MechWarrior franchise, but if we cling on to every single aspect from the past, it's going to be hard.

[UncleKulikov]

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

...which is why it would be nice for light mechs. I am not advocating this for mechs that would be overpowered with it. Giving an urbanmech 360 degree torso twist would not make it the king of the battlefield by any means. It might, however, make it a more viable mech to play as.

As for who determines which mechs get 360 degree rotation? Gee, I don't know, perhaps the game developers in charge of giving the mechs their stats? I think the mechs that had 360 degree rotation in MW4 might be a good start. It definitely didn't break the game.

As for the purists who still think that this somehow violates the way mechs are controlled...
Mechs have complicated gyros for a reason. They maintain balance. Not humans. Human minds can be tricked. Ever get hit hard enough in the head to get a concussion? It messes up your balance. If you make a mech depend on our flawed bodies to stand up, something is wrong with you. It takes a few simple lines of code to get a mechanical arm with a sensor attached to balance a pencil on end. I'd much rather trust a computer to keep my mech standing than a few tubes of fluid in my ears.

Again, the advantages of rebooting a franchise is that you can clear away some of the useless drivel that strangles the universe to death. This over-reliance on outdated tech that was drawn up decades ago for a table top game is going to drown MWO if every single tech brief is followed to the letter. JJ Abrams did a damn good job rebooting Trek by shedding some of the useless treknobabble, and likewise so did Ronald D. Moore and friends with Battlestar Galactica. I'd like to see the same done with the MechWarrior franchise, but if we cling on to every single aspect from the past, it's going to be hard.

I'm still concerned that it would remove an emphasis on maneuvering, in that to flee from someone (to get top speed) you need to expose your rear armor to them. It would be especially beneficial for light mechs, since they rely on speed. This would let them keep their speed, and in more situations have higher armor than normal.

[BFalcon]

I'd be against it for all mechs, to be honest... for the reasons I explained.

As for BsG... they ruined it in the reboot, so you might want to reconsider using that as a comparison - the Trek reboot I've got mixed feelings about. But that's going OT.

I'd sooner stick to the "as written" game for now and then, maybe, test it on a test server to see if it's worth adding in.

[Clay Pigeon]

360 is a bit much. 270 (like owls) can be realistically done w/o endangering internal cabling.

[9thFarShot]

BSG was not ruined in the reboot, but made about a hundred times better. Your opinion is the opposite of about ninety percent of people out there. And before you say anything about hardcore fans knowing the best:

A critical aspect of any form of entertainment franchise that wants to stay in business is that they have to attract fans. There is a reason that BSG and prime Star Trek ran out of steam. They alienated the general public, either by catering too much to the hardcore fans or just running out of material.

For an MMO, and specifically F2P, this is especially true. Don't forget that your gaming experience will depend on others being there. If MWO alienates people because they go too hardcore with old school BattleTech, then you might find that they're shutting down in a few months and you're going to wish they were more lax. I'm not saying a decision on whether or not they'll implement full rotation will decide the future of the game, but it's just one of many battlefronts that they have to fight on to keep a playerbase.

And Clay Pigeon:

How do you expect tanks keep their turrets powered? I really don't understand how people can think a radial torso joint would present some sort of technical problem, because if it doesn't now, but one thousand years in the future it does, well then something is wrong with the people writing up BattleTech.

Edited by 9thFarShot, 12 June 2012 - 06:32 PM.

[Sychodemus]

Just imagine if you took a black marker to every single book in Battletech canon and struck everything that is old, outdated or wierd by today's standards.

You might have giant robots. They wouldn't move and they would have no weapons until you could create a brand new set of rules that were internally logical and consistent. I am sure it would be more realistic, especially if you add in real-world weapon and armor dynamics. And I am sure that NOE combat will be loads of fun.
So what would you call this game? MechaWarrior? Probably not since the game is no longer really centered on the pilot. Just call it MechBlaster and have fun.

[9thFarShot]

Piloting a mech with anything but a synchronized body suit requires a lot of skill. I would definitely contend that it takes nothing away from the experience of being a badass mech pilot.

As for weapons, they aren't that far from reality. I doubt machine guns would really weigh tons, but that's one of my few concerns. I'm glad that lasers cause overheating.

Again, another person using the argument where you blow someone's point to ridiculous proportions. I am not advocating that all of BattleTech needs to be rewritten. But is it that much of a stretch to give a few mechs turret mounted torsos?

I can sit here and argue this all day if I need to in order to convince you all of the logic of my stance. So far the best arguments are based on dated opinions from decades ago and the fanboy need to cling to canon, again written decades ago.

[Sychodemus]

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

BSG was not ruined in the reboot, but made about a hundred times better. Your opinion is the opposite of about ninety percent of people out there. And before you say anything about hardcore fans knowing the best:

A critical aspect of any form of entertainment franchise that wants to stay in business is that they have to attract fans. There is a reason that BSG and prime Star Trek ran out of steam. They alienated the general public, either by catering too much to the hardcore fans or just running out of material.

For an MMO, and specifically F2P, this is especially true. Don't forget that your gaming experience will depend on others being there. If MWO alienates people because they go to hardcore with old school BattleTech, then you might find that they're shutting down in a few months and you're going to wish they were more lax. I'm not saying a decision on whether or not they'll implement full rotation will decide the future of the game, but it's just one of many battlefronts that they have to fight on to keep a playerbase.

And Clay Pigeon:

How do you expect tanks keep their turrets powered? I really don't understand how people can think a radial torso joint would present some sort of technical problem, because if it doesn't now, but one thousand years in the future it does, well then something is wrong with the people writing up BattleTech.

You may like BSG and that is good. But you should probably avoid gross and inaccurate statements like "90% of the people out there." You as a fan of BSGmk2 should know that it is rabid and diehard fans that keep any franchise alive. So don't dismiss that loyalty so easily.

In regards to online gaming, you may very well be right. But you may also be wrong. We have no real idea of how player interaction will work aside from we will shoot each other when in a match. We still don't know how those matches will be arranged. We pretty much know nothing at all.

Full/variable torso rotation does present one major problem. The 'Mech designer will be faced with two choices: 1) determine rotation based on the concept art or 2) dictate what the art will look like based on the predetermined rotation arc. (okay, there is a third sub-option: allow limb clipping.)

PGI will do what they want and like all game companies they will just have to see if their game is successful or not.

Oh and for the record: there has always been something wrong with the people writing Battletech. I've met many of them. Yeah, they are some seriously wierd people.

Edited by Sychodemus, 12 June 2012 - 06:48 PM.

[9thFarShot]

Rabid and diehard fans can't keep a franchise alive if the studio execs decide to shut it down because it only had rabid and diehard fans. It's a harsh reality, but if you have noticed, my arguments have been based on reality and logic.

Regardless of what you say about BSG, the cold hard fact remains that it was critically successful. Those who watched it liked it by a large majority. That's one thing it has going for it and that is a major thing indeed. Twlight is absolutely terrible, but it has the fanbase, so it is an ongoing franchise. And that fanbase has diehards and casual fans, something that Star Trek and original BSG didn't have or didn't have for long.

Again, the continued existence of MWO will depend in the end on its playerbase. Star Trek Online has been floating on the borderline for too long, and I'm cautiously optimistic about MWO's lifespan. Just keep that in mind as well.

[BFalcon]

Sychodemus, on 12 June 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

You may like BSG and that is good. But you should probably avoid gross and inaccurate statements like "90% of the people out there." You as a fan of BSGmk2 should know that it is rabid and diehard fans that keep any franchise alive. So don't dismiss that loyalty so easily.

In regards to online gaming, you may very well be right. But you may also be wrong. We have no real idea of how player interaction will work aside from we will shoot each other when in a match. We still don't know how those matches will be arranged. We pretty much know nothing at all.

Full/variable torso rotation does present one major problem. The 'Mech designer will be faced with two choices: 1) determine rotation based on the concept art or 2) dictate what the art will look like based on the predetermined rotation arc. (okay, there is a third sub-option: allow limb clipping.)

PGI will do what they want and like all game companies they will just have to see if their game is successful or not.

Oh and for the record: there has always been something wrong with the people writing Battletech. I've met many of them. Yeah, they are some seriously wierd people.

Well said - would point out a few things to yourself and the poster you're replaying to.

1) Franchises. I stated my opinion as someone who grew up with BSG the original series. The Series had religious hope as a last lifeline as a theme for the whole series. My biggest gripe was when they destroyed one of my favourite characters, instead of adding a few more.

2) The problem with looking at designs is twofold: a) the design (the Unseen in particular) might well have changed over the years. Ral Partha / Ironwind are still, AFAIK, producing minis and they often do redesigns, so while one variant might seemingly allow it, another might not.

3) It's 4am and I'm off to bed.