366 replies to this topic

[Aleksander Storm]

Teralitha, on 12 June 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Good thing they are, or I would have to argue with you

Well, you don't so much argue as go, essentially, "This bunny has a pancake on his head, your argument is invalid."

I want to support 360 on some 'Mechs, but your way of going about supporting it makes me want to oppose you. I suggest you quit while you're behind.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Aleksander Storm, on 13 June 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Well, you don't so much argue as go, essentially, "This bunny has a pancake on his head, your argument is invalid."

I want to support 360 on some 'Mechs, but your way of going about supporting it makes me want to oppose you. I suggest you quit while you're behind.

Thanks. I was starting to feel like I was the only one seeing it.

[Teralitha]

Franklen Avignon, on 13 June 2012 - 04:42 AM, said:

No one claimed they were, so what is your point?



Support good gameplay mechanics.

Yea they kinda did.....


And yea support 360

[Teralitha]

Tincan Nightmare, on 12 June 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

You know I want 360 torso twist in the game now too, hopefully for the Hunchback. That way I can run away from targets while shooting them in the face with an AC/20. Oh and I really won't have to mount any rear armor, since I can just point my machine away from the enemy and run away while facing them with my frontal armor and all my weapons. Hell it should be easy, everyone can run full speed while twisted around 180 looking out over their ***. Think of all those jealous tankers, they need a seperate driver and gunner to accomplish that, what maroons. Hope you get the sarcasm here.

Hunchback didnt have 360, and wont have it here either. Doesnt need it. But, some mechs do need it.

From your example... Oh look at the silly hunchback who got stuck on a rock.. Hes prone!! BOOM dead.... Yea... that is what 360 does. Requires higher piloting skills. Ya.. Just... Dont... Get... It........ Do ya.



Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 05:35 AM.

[BFalcon]

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

Fortunately, we already have an example of where 360 twist worked and was balanced. Mw4. So there is no worries of it causing problems here.

BAAAD example... MW4 I bought all-in without realising the franchise had gotten bought out, installed both versions and ended up hating it immediately. The whole feel, given the later production date, was inferior to MW3.

I feel, from reading the posts from the devs, that they are aiming to keep it a true mech sim this time.

As for reasons why not to have 360 degree torso twists, I've already used the Light/Medium/Heavy/Assault comparisons, try also: Arms can, on a few mechs, extend beyond the twist of the torso - in previous MW versions, extending to the look left or right, allowing a canny pilot to use arm-mounted weapons to engage pursuers once in a while (the MW3 video showed that, as I recall). There is a counter to this: shooting the arms off. Each mech pilot is basically gambling... does he take a mech with decent arm weapons, knowing that he can then protect his mech on that side better, but risk losing those weapons once his arm or torso on that side is destroyed or does he try to limit his field of fire and protect his weapons by putting them in the torso, in which case he's more vunerable to the rear. This is why there is a variation in designs for this.

Also, there's also the engineering aspect - a tank turret, when looking at torsional stress, is largely a low-profile mass sitting on a ring mount. This means that the torsional stress will be relatively low - well within tolerances for the materials.

The vast majority of the mechs, on the other hand, are the reverse - the vast majority of the mass is in the upper "turret" (the torso, arms and head) - making turning it a major undertaking if you want it moved quickly. Also remember that the linkage to the upper torso has to contend with falling over, close combat (not in the game, but only because of interface complications, rather than it not being canon) and impacts from large-calibre rounds. This would suggest that myomer bundles, rather than servos, would be the preferable means of turning the torso if you want any kind of reasonable turning speed (which may be crucial).

Put simply, were you just to connect the torso to the leg assembly using a tank turret mounting, the torso would just fall off.

Not exactly what you'd be aiming for as a result, Quineg?

[Aleksander Storm]

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

Umm... No... MWO is being strongly based and influenced by the TT rules and lore... balancing will adjust a few things but I believe strongly that all 'Mechs should be designed to respect their given firing arcs from the TT rules... those might even be adjusted slightly... but should resemble their TT specifications as closely as possible.

I'd assume that was Promptus' point by using such exaggerated examples. However, I think that also means his satirical post also falls into the territory of Logical Fallacy (Edit: This case, Slippery Slope). Please avoid these and other Logical Fallacies, please. I'd like to see solid points on BOTH sides made.

Edited by Aleksander Storm, 13 June 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[Aleksander Storm]

Sychodemus, on 12 June 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

In many ways, torso-twisting in tabletop was just a way to represent bipedal 'Mechs ability to swing fire. It doesn't actually have to be a rotation of the torso. Not as good as turret, but better than nothing.

Anyway, I wish 345° rotation upon my opponents.

I also think it was intended to add a hard-limit for how far a 'Mech can adjust their aim in one turn, since torso twisting was essentially a phase of a turn on its own- you could turn your 'Mechs torso to the left or the right regardless of any 'action points' or 'time units' or whatever your pilot may or may not have had. It was essentially a 'free action'. The same could not be said of actually turning your 'Mech, but at the same time the movement and firing phases are separated, as well, so you need at least some chance to be able to aim at the enemy if they move away from your facing, especially if they have lower initiative (in BattleTech, the later you act, the more you can rely on the enemy to be where you see them when you get your chance to fire- though, at the same time, if the enemy can manage to kill you before you get the chance to fire... ).

[Teralitha]

Yes and all my points are rock solid. These anti supporters have nothing to go on exept for an old peice of paper with some fictional rules written on it from 30 years ago by an imperfect human being about a fictional universe.

But mechs were made to mimic the human form! Yea, have you seen a mech? There are a few that have the arms and legs form, but many do not. They are mechanical machines in a fictional world and are only limited by our imagination. They are not limited by a peice of paper with words on it.


Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 06:13 AM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

Yea they kinda did.....


And yea support 360

Please, link the post where someone claimed, "Mechs are people."

I eagerly await your reply.


Support good game mechanics.

[BFalcon]

Franklen Avignon, on 13 June 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

Please, link the post where someone claimed, "Mechs are people."

I eagerly await your reply.


Support good game mechanics.

I said they mimic the human form (ie are humanoid) in order for the neurohelmet to work. Obviously I wasn't suggesting the quads are.

[Teralitha]

BFalcon, on 13 June 2012 - 05:41 AM, said:

BAAAD example... MW4 I bought all-in without realising the franchise had gotten bought out, installed both versions and ended up hating it immediately. The whole feel, given the later production date, was inferior to MW3.

I feel, from reading the posts from the devs, that they are aiming to keep it a true mech sim this time.

As for reasons why not to have 360 degree torso twists, I've already used the Light/Medium/Heavy/Assault comparisons, try also: Arms can, on a few mechs, extend beyond the twist of the torso - in previous MW versions, extending to the look left or right, allowing a canny pilot to use arm-mounted weapons to engage pursuers once in a while (the MW3 video showed that, as I recall). There is a counter to this: shooting the arms off. Each mech pilot is basically gambling... does he take a mech with decent arm weapons, knowing that he can then protect his mech on that side better, but risk losing those weapons once his arm or torso on that side is destroyed or does he try to limit his field of fire and protect his weapons by putting them in the torso, in which case he's more vunerable to the rear. This is why there is a variation in designs for this.

Also, there's also the engineering aspect - a tank turret, when looking at torsional stress, is largely a low-profile mass sitting on a ring mount. This means that the torsional stress will be relatively low - well within tolerances for the materials.

The vast majority of the mechs, on the other hand, are the reverse - the vast majority of the mass is in the upper "turret" (the torso, arms and head) - making turning it a major undertaking if you want it moved quickly. Also remember that the linkage to the upper torso has to contend with falling over, close combat (not in the game, but only because of interface complications, rather than it not being canon) and impacts from large-calibre rounds. This would suggest that myomer bundles, rather than servos, would be the preferable means of turning the torso if you want any kind of reasonable turning speed (which may be crucial).

Put simply, were you just to connect the torso to the leg assembly using a tank turret mounting, the torso would just fall off.

Not exactly what you'd be aiming for as a result, Quineg?

Your engineering examples are the worst ones yet on this topic. My and others engineering examples promoting 360 are far better. Read previous posts. At least yuou didnt try to use the 'spose to mimic humans!' argument like others have, which is even more silly.

Franklen Avignon, on 13 June 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

Please, link the post where someone claimed, "Mechs are people."

I eagerly await your reply.


Support good game mechanics.

Read every post, youll find them(there is more than one). Im not gonna do the leg work for you ya lazy *******.


Btw, thank you for supporting good game mechanics like 360

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[Teralitha]

So far in this topic, every one bringing their opinions on why 360 should not be in the game have been utterly destroyed by common sense. Yet they keep lining up trying to reiterate the same lame arguements over and over.


Support 360, for realism, for skill, for fun

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 06:15 AM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

Read every post, youll find them(there is more than one). Im not gonna do the leg work for you ya lazy *******.


Btw, thank you for supporting good game mechanics like 360

So, you make a claim, refuse to back it up with facts, then cover that up by resorting to name-calling.

You didn't do well in debate, did you, my friend?

Here is a (very well-done) youtube video you will find helpful. It's about argument and how to conduct one. I suggest you watch up. (Ironically, it's even done by a couple of teenagers.)



Also, you know very well what I mean by "good game mechanics." Don't be petty.

[Teralitha]

Franklen Avignon, on 13 June 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

So, you make a claim, refuse to back it up with facts, then cover that up by resorting to name-calling.

You didn't do well in debate, did you, my friend?

Here is a (very well-done) youtube video you will find helpful. It's about argument and how to conduct one. I suggest you watch up. (Ironically, it's even done by a couple of teenagers.)


Also, you know very well what I mean by "good game mechanics." Don't be petty.

If you had read the whole conversation, you wouldnt be making idiotic posts, like this.

So your willing to make the effort to find a video, and flame me, but you wont make the effort to catch up on what everyone has already said in this topic. This just makes you look stupid, and makes me look like a genius.



Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 06:23 AM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

So far in this topic, every one bringing their opinions on why 360 should not be in the game have been utterly destroyed by common sense. Yet they keep lining up trying to reiterate the same lame arguements over and over.


Support 360, for realism, for skill, for fun

So far in this topic, every one bringing their opinions on why 360 should not be in the game have been utterly destroyed by penguins with lasers shooting from their eyes. Yet they keep lining up trying to reiterate the same lame arguements over and over, no matter how much I keep making illogical and outright false claims.


Support 360, for realism (in a science fiction game set over a thousand years in the future), for skill, for fun, because I want it.
__________

FTFY

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

If you had read the whole conversation, you wouldnt be making idiotic posts, like this.

I feel kind of silly having to ask this, but you do understand what logic is, right?

Also, you do understand the concept that, no matter how often or how loudly you claim something to be true that is false, it is still false, right?

[Teralitha]

Franklen Avignon, on 13 June 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

I feel kind of silly having to ask this, but you do understand what logic is, right?

Also, you do understand the concept that, no matter how often or how loudly you claim something to be true that is false, it is still false, right?

Yes, and my logic trumps your logic. Its makes more sense, to read the topic, before making dump replies. But thanks for the bumps.

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 06:27 AM.

[Roland]

Both sides of the argument in this thread are comprised almost entirely of weak strawman nonsense.

[BFalcon]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

If you had read the whole conversation, you wouldnt be making idiotic posts, like this.

And making ones like yours, for example?

If 360 degree torso twists ARE going to be in, it won't be Battletech to me, since it'll just be "size wins" and so will be a game I'll not be spending money on. If they're not, then tactics will play a part and I'll be more than happy to spend on it.

You see an antiquated 30 year board game. I see 30 years of built up "history" and flavour that go into making for a richer game and, at the same time, gathering a strong customer base during that time - which this game should be bringing into its own.

[Teralitha]

BFalcon, on 13 June 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

And making ones like yours, for example?

If 360 degree torso twists ARE going to be in, it won't be Battletech to me, since it'll just be "size wins" and so will be a game I'll not be spending money on. If they're not, then tactics will play a part and I'll be more than happy to spend on it.

You see an antiquated 30 year board game. I see 30 years of built up "history" and flavour that go into making for a richer game and, at the same time, gathering a strong customer base during that time - which this game should be bringing into its own.

And I see 360 as a video game mechanic that makes it more fun, challenging, and diverse, helping to keep the interest of myself, and many new and old players, for years to come.

This also akin to adding in splash damage for blown up mechs. Its spices up the overall feel of the game and how its played.


Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 06:33 AM.

[Adrian McLeod]

for me

360 - never ever
armtwist to the back - yes (I love playing TT with newbies and then looking at their face when using my rifleman, waiting that they walk behind me and then twisting ,,, that´s sooo funny )