366 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Zoggy brings up a good point though, in pointing out features which were in the TT game but do not appear to be implemented in this incarnation, such as arm flipping.

[Xyph3r]

PewPew2, on 09 June 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

Ya theres no such things as 360 degree twist for mechs in battletech. I understand you want super-mechs that do absolutely everything but there has to be a balance somewhere.

well there are, but a.f.a.i.k. they´re all clan `Mechs... the Mad Dog (Vulture) for example (i know there are at least 2 more, but i can´t name them right now )

[Mercules]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 11 June 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

you'd almost have to have a seperate screen just to see what was behind you, but its not a terrible idea and there are some cannon mechs that had this feature.

Hmmmmm... if only we had a second screen to display this on at the flip of a switch... something with a joystick and gamepad..... Hmmmmmm.

[TheRulesLawyer]

The question here is do you want to go by canon or by TT rules?

TT says only 120 degrees. Of course we should remember that this is an abstraction of reaction speed and tracking ability.

Canon says there are some mech that could do a 360 degree torso twist. Those mechs should be able to do so.

I'm hoping every mech has slightly different torso twist ranges and torso twist speeds. Being able to track faster or further could be nice perk for otherwise unloved chassis.

[Teralitha]

Mercules, on 11 June 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

I have MW4 currently loaded on my system and am playing through it for what is probably the 11th? 12th? time. I've piloted mechs with 360 degree twist and they are "easy mode" compared to more restricted mechs. So you can understand what I think of your claim of "skill" needed to pilot them. The dumbing down of the game would not be coming from those wanting a more canon universe but for those advocating for MW4's "simulation".

You played the campaign 12 times? oh gee, I guess this makes you an expert on the PVP side of the game then....NOT

[Southern Taxi]

Roland, on 09 June 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

MW4 implemented it well. Torso twist was different from mech to mech... only a very select few had a full 360 degree torso twist capability. Off the top of my head, they were the Thor, Thanatos, Raven.... maybe that's it? I don't remember any others at the moment.

At least on Mercenaries, Black Jack.

Edited by Southern Taxi, 11 June 2012 - 03:23 PM.

[Teralitha]

Meldarth Sunphot, on 11 June 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

*sighs* I have piloted them; and piloted them well........sad fact is to me - MW4 is the weakest game in Mech for several reasons; not just because 360 twist........its way too arcady - Devs have already said they are not making an arcade game but a sim......

if MW4 is the weakest game in meching, then why do people still have servers for it up and running with people playing it after all these years... are there still mw123 servers and players around? were there ever?

This is just your opinion, but its not factual at all. Fine call it an arcade shooter, but I had fun playing it or years, and all the mechanics of mw4, made it fun, including 360.

If for nothing else, adding in 360 to MWO on a few mechs, will spice it up even more. It wont be breaking the game, it never broke mw4, it wouldnt break this game either.

[Steel Talon]

Bring us good mech simulator NOT remake of TT, thats totaly other genre
every aspect adding diversity to mechs is big +

[trycksh0t]

Actually, I think there's a better answer than just yes or no, and the Devs have already come up with it....sort of. So, if we take TT values for torso twist, it's actually 240-degrees (120 to each side). Now, a lot of the MW4 and MWLL players like the 360 for the main benefit, I'm assuming, of being able to turn around and hit guys behind you.

Still with me? Okay.

That's still possible with 240-degree twists, but only if your 'Mech has arms. Since it has been confirmed that arm-mounted weapons can be aimed independently from torso weapons, that means they have to have some field of motion outside of normal torso-weapons ranges. Twist to the max, disengage the arm reticule from the torso, push as far as possible - voila, shoot the guy behind you. TT rules stay standard, still have a full range of fire for certain 'Mechs (granted with limited firepower), everyone wins.

Edited by trycksh0t, 11 June 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

trycksh0t, on 11 June 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

So, if we take TT values for torso twist, it's actually 240-degrees (120 to each side).

Actually, you could only twist 120 deg in the TT. One hex which equal 60 deg each in either direction.

[trycksh0t]

Franklen Avignon, on 11 June 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Actually, you could only twist 120 deg in the TT. One hex which equal 60 deg each in either direction.

Oh? I could have sworn it was two hex-sides. Granted, it's been awhile since I played TT.

Edit - Yep, you would be correct. My mistake.

Edited by trycksh0t, 11 June 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[cinco]

Kirchoff, on 09 June 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Theres a reason why people dont twist 360

and that reason isn't applicable to machinery. mechs aren't human. they're basically walking tanks. and there's a reason why tanks can turn 360. it's a tactical advantage that any military manufacturer cannot overlook.

it just makes sense.

[Slyck]

cinco, on 11 June 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

and that reason isn't applicable to machinery. mechs aren't human. they're basically walking tanks. and there's a reason why tanks can turn 360. it's a tactical advantage that any military manufacturer cannot overlook.

it just makes sense.

From a battlefield role they act as a fusion of armour and infantry. But structurally they have more in common with a person then any vehicle.

-The have a skeleton that acts as the load bearing structure, not a hull.

-They use muscles for mobility, not motors.

-They are tied into their pilots nervous system for the autonomic minutia of movement on top of manual controls.

Edited by Slyck, 11 June 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[Roland]

Again since folks seem to have missed it...

Zoggy points out that in TT, arms without lower arm actuators can flip and fire behind a mech, thus extending its firing arc. In many ways, the TT rules regard this as akin to twisting the torso (even takes the same place in the turn).

Thus, implementing something like a 360 twist, for mechs without lower arm actuators, would actually be a way in which you'd be implementing a capability already in existence in the table top game, but sidestepping the complexities of trying to implement actually firing behind a mech.

[Nginear]

I am pretty new to the forums, but I've been playing BT forever. I can see the desire for full 360 twist (Rear guard able to keep up without sacrificing weight for speed) but it definitely could be abused.

The easiest way I could think of the developers implementing it would be,

1. Very limited number of mechs that could twist beyond 180
2. The maximum twist would be 359 degrees, giving a hard lock to the amount of rotation before having to go back the other way.
3. Mechs with large twist radius have tissue paper back armor (think Rifleman IIC) as a default, and not a lot of space to upgrade that armor.

That is just off the top of my head. Hopefully they do implement something, cause I really want to be a Medium-Heavy weight rear guard when playing with my friends. I had that roll in the MW4 days, I'd like to take it up again.

[eZZip]

I can't see why anybody would want 360 torso twists other than that they had played MW4. It's simply not good for balance—you can run backward and show your frontal armor simultaneously, when you should really have the disadvantage when running like that (either you can't return fire and expose your rear armor or you back away slowly).

[Egomane]

Xyph3r, on 11 June 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

well there are, but a.f.a.i.k. they´re all clan `Mechs... the Mad Dog (Vulture) for example (i know there are at least 2 more, but i can´t name them right now )

In canon, there are none. Please keep in mind that MW4 is not canon in regards to mech abilities.

Teralitha, on 11 June 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

if MW4 is the weakest game in meching, then why do people still have servers for it up and running with people playing it after all these years... are there still mw123 servers and players around? were there ever?

This is just your opinion, but its not factual at all. Fine call it an arcade shooter, but I had fun playing it or years, and all the mechanics of mw4, made it fun, including 360.

If for nothing else, adding in 360 to MWO on a few mechs, will spice it up even more. It wont be breaking the game, it never broke mw4, it wouldnt break this game either.

Maybe Mechwarrior 1, 2 and 3 are no longer played online because they were never meant to be played that way? The multi-player part of those games, if they had one, was implemented in a much different way then in MW4. Please don't try to compare apples to oranges.

No one denies you the fact that you had fun in MW4. I had fun with it as well. We simply try to tell you, that it was a very poor implementation of the Mechwarrior/Battletech franchise. It had the names and the looks, but at its core it was something else.

You simply cannot compare it to the other games, because it did nearly everything different then those games. To put it in a picture: While all the games that came before went straight ahead, MW4 took a sharp 120° turn and left the road.

From everything I read, the Devs want to get back on that road and on that road there is no room for a 360° twist as far as I can look. But neither you, or I, or anyone else besides the devs can see the end of the road.

Roland, on 11 June 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Again since folks seem to have missed it...

Zoggy points out that in TT, arms without lower arm actuators can flip and fire behind a mech, thus extending its firing arc. In many ways, the TT rules regard this as akin to twisting the torso (even takes the same place in the turn).

Thus, implementing something like a 360 twist, for mechs without lower arm actuators, would actually be a way in which you'd be implementing a capability already in existence in the table top game, but sidestepping the complexities of trying to implement actually firing behind a mech.

I didn't miss it, I mentioned it myself, but this is only half the thought necessary. Arm-flipping enabled you to flip the weapons of only your arms, as the name suggests, to the back. A 360° twist will enable all weapons to do just that.

If you simply want to shoot backwards, a 179°/180° twist should be enough. If there is a hard lock at the end, that prevents your mechs upper torso from playing carousel, you still can get outmanouvered by faster, more mobile, mechs. It would be much easier to justify, even within the frame that the battletech universe gives us.

[Teralitha]

trycksh0t, on 11 June 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Actually, I think there's a better answer than just yes or no, and the Devs have already come up with it....sort of. So, if we take TT values for torso twist, it's actually 240-degrees (120 to each side). Now, a lot of the MW4 and MWLL players like the 360 for the main benefit, I'm assuming, of being able to turn around and hit guys behind you.

Still with me? Okay.

That's still possible with 240-degree twists, but only if your 'Mech has arms. Since it has been confirmed that arm-mounted weapons can be aimed independently from torso weapons, that means they have to have some field of motion outside of normal torso-weapons ranges. Twist to the max, disengage the arm reticule from the torso, push as far as possible - voila, shoot the guy behind you. TT rules stay standard, still have a full range of fire for certain 'Mechs (granted with limited firepower), everyone wins.

Players could do this already in mw4 if they didnt have 360. The mech arms could be extended to fire behind you.

[Teralitha]

Egomane, on 11 June 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

You simply cannot compare it to the other games, because it did nearly everything different then those games. To put it in a picture: While all the games that came before went straight ahead, MW4 took a sharp 120° turn and left the road.

All things kept in mind, MW4 was a big hit. If MWO goes back to the previous.. "road", then whos to say that it would be a big hit if taveling offroad like mw4 was so popular?

You realize they are also making MW tactics, for the TT lovers. MWO, the simulation game, doesnt have to be textbook. In fact, it would be a huge improvement, if it wasnt.

Edited by Teralitha, 11 June 2012 - 10:40 PM.

[Egomane]

Teralitha, on 11 June 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

All things kept in mind, MW4 was a big hit. If MWO goes back to the previous.. "road", then whos to say that it would be a big hit if taveling offroad like mw4 was so popular?

As were the other games before it. We wouldn't have had a MW4 if that wern't the case.

Teralitha, on 11 June 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

You realize they are also making MW tactics, for the TT lovers. MWO, the simulation game, doesnt have to be textbook. In fact, it would be a huge improvement, if it wasnt.

As you always tell us to go play MW4, I'll reverse it here. Have you ever played MW1, 2 or 3? The games before MW4 used most of the tabletop rules and worked very well as a simulation. In my oppinion, and that of a very large part of this community, they worked much better then MW4.

The reason we think that way, is because while MW4 simulated some form of mech combat, it didn't simulate the limitations the universe in which said combat happened. A good simulator will not change the rules of the universe it is build to simulate, just to make something possible that otherwise isn't, unless that is the very goal of the simulator.

Don't try to push those who disagree with you out of the game. If I want to play the tabletop, I play it, with paper maps and or 3D terrain, miniatures, papersheets and my friends. We don't need a computer game to do it. I am here to play a simulator within this world, to feel like I am inside one of those lumbering mashines build for war, not to push them around a hexmap. The one thing (to be true to the given world) doesn't exclude the other (playing a simulator).