366 replies to this topic

[Slyck]

Yeah, I'm cool with the skeleton working. But what about the muscles, how do you design muscles capable of that?

Also I might have missed this but where is this defined cannonically rather then as a cool gameplay feature in a game that flaunted canon?

[Vandul]

For 360 degree twist, the upper torso would need to sit in a basket, just like the turret of a tank, or a battleship. When the torso twists, the entire basket would turn with it.

Power would have to be transmitted from the plant to the 'basket'. In the Real World™, this is done through a transmission ring or rings. Because of this, there is a built in inherit weakness. Did you know that many tanks and ship mounted turrets are not permanently affixed? Take a look at knocked out tanks photos and see the turret angles. Also, many ship mounted systems (turrets, launchers and radars) are not permanently affixed, but actually just 'placed' onto the platform. On the ships I served on, if the ship were ever to take a roll of more than 42 degrees, the upper radars could literally fall out.

Tanks dont jump. Ships dont jump. I could not imagine the results of a mech jumping without the torso being affixed permanently. Also, were talking about transmission rings that are passing 120/220/440 cycle power from a V-12 diesel or a steam run turbine.

Mechs have fusion plants. The power to charge and fire a pair of PPC's would be astronomical and probably couldnt be transmitted via the channels described above. And would you want your upper torso bouncing around on top of a 15kGw fusion bottle? I dont think so.

Theres my .02 c-bills from an engineering/military perspective.

[Teralitha]

Rodney28021, on 12 June 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Yeah it is Gamebreaking. That was another reason the MW X games were so unbalanced in PVP. 360degree Torso Twists are not in the TT rule for many reasons. Just because those games from MS had it, does not mean MWO should have it. Tanks have turrets, those turrets are mostly empty space. Mechs have more than half of their mass above the torso joint and some of it moves causing changing center of gravity. MS put 360degree Torso Twists in for kicks or to make the game fun for the masses, especially for the PVE. 360degree Torso Twists let the mech run at full speed while the front of mech is pointed to the rear. That is so wrong for pvp in MWO.

No it isnt, No it wasnt. The only reason it was in TT is because of hexes. We dont have that here. Gyros. yes 360 was indeed fun for the masses, tell me... who played PvE in MW4 for 12 years?

Based on your comments, it stands to reason that 360 in MWO will ALSO be fun for the masses. You shot yourself in the foot with that one...

NEXT

Support 360

[Rodney28021]

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.

The servers are up because there are some people wanting to play it because IT is MW, not because it is a good balanced PVP game. And because there were no game developers out there making another mech game till MM LL or MWO. Fans are fans, some of them hate change and cannot be bothered to learn new game. Have to hand it to PGI, they got the BALLS to spend the money to develope this game.

[Teralitha]

Slyck, on 12 June 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

Yeah, I'm cool with the skeleton working. But what about the muscles, how do you design muscles capable of that?

Also I might have missed this but where is this defined cannonically rather then as a cool gameplay feature in a game that flaunted canon?

I invented 360, Im sorry but its patented, and my design blueprints are not available to the general public, for obvious reasons. Ive sold designs to the major houses, and their factories will soon be producing new battlemechs with 360, and will be in a battlemech store near you.... in about a month.

[Rebmac]

Vandul, on 12 June 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

For 360 degree twist, the upper torso would need to sit in a basket, just like the turret of a tank, or a battleship. When the torso twists, the entire basket would turn with it.

Power would have to be transmitted from the plant to the 'basket'. In the Real World™, this is done through a transmission ring or rings. Because of this, there is a built in inherit weakness. Did you know that many tanks and ship mounted turrets are not permanently affixed? Take a look at knocked out tanks photos and see the turret angles. Also, many ship mounted systems (turrets, launchers and radars) are not permanently affixed, but actually just 'placed' onto the platform. On the ships I served on, if the ship were ever to take a roll of more than 42 degrees, the upper radars could literally fall out.

Tanks dont jump. Ships dont jump. I could not imagine the results of a mech jumping without the torso being affixed permanently. Also, were talking about transmission rings that are passing 120/220/440 cycle power from a V-12 diesel or a steam run turbine.

Mechs have fusion plants. The power to charge and fire a pair of PPC's would be astronomical and probably couldnt be transmitted via the channels described above. And would you want your upper torso bouncing around on top of a 15kGw fusion bottle? I dont think so.

Theres my .02 c-bills from an engineering/military perspective.

Ok so a few points you covered here I agree with, but you also left it open.

"Tanks dont jump. Ships dont jump. I could not imagine the results of a mech jumping without the torso being affixed permanently."
so if the mech isn't jump capable, it should also be able to torso twist 360.

"Mechs have fusion plants. The power to charge and fire a pair of PPC's would be astronomical and probably couldnt be transmitted via the channels described above"
The power to fire a balistic or Missle weapon is much MUCH less. and could probally be transmitted via the channels describe above. So a mech that can 360, is just restricted to weapon load out, would this work?

[Egomane]

Rebmac, on 12 June 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

So a mech that can 360, is just restricted to weapon load out, would this work?

No, you'd still need the power to move the arms (myomers are very power hungry, I am told), to power your sensors, cockpit controls, life support, and so on. You also have to deal with the fact that a mech, while not jumping, will still fall down from time to time, and a torso like a turret could very well fall out of its socket at such a time.

[Teralitha]

Vandul, on 12 June 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

For 360 degree twist, the upper torso would need to sit in a basket, just like the turret of a tank, or a battleship. When the torso twists, the entire basket would turn with it.

Power would have to be transmitted from the plant to the 'basket'. In the Real World™, this is done through a transmission ring or rings. Because of this, there is a built in inherit weakness. Did you know that many tanks and ship mounted turrets are not permanently affixed? Take a look at knocked out tanks photos and see the turret angles. Also, many ship mounted systems (turrets, launchers and radars) are not permanently affixed, but actually just 'placed' onto the platform. On the ships I served on, if the ship were ever to take a roll of more than 42 degrees, the upper radars could literally fall out.

Tanks dont jump. Ships dont jump. I could not imagine the results of a mech jumping without the torso being affixed permanently. Also, were talking about transmission rings that are passing 120/220/440 cycle power from a V-12 diesel or a steam run turbine.

Mechs have fusion plants. The power to charge and fire a pair of PPC's would be astronomical and probably couldnt be transmitted via the channels described above. And would you want your upper torso bouncing around on top of a 15kGw fusion bottle? I dont think so.

Theres my .02 c-bills from an engineering/military perspective.

I also served in the navy, on a ship. Your wrong about radars just sitting on top of someting and could 'fall out' Navy ship can and have rocked beyond 42 degrees in high seas and this doesnt happen. Not attaching the radar is dumb. They are attached.

And mechs engines are not in the legs... neither are the weapons, in general.

A mechs gyro is a powerful thing, and allows it to run, jump, fly, stand up straight etc... A swiveling 360 torso is a minor feat for a mech gyro. Sorry...

I should know, I designed it.



Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 12 June 2012 - 08:13 AM.

[Artifice]

The Urbie. It should have a 360 twist.

Look at it. Think about it. Think about similar things like those egg timers that tell you when your bacon cookies are done. You know it should be true. You know it's the only reason the Urbie never went the way of the Mackie. You want it so bad you can taste it. I'm on a horse.

With some serious respect to the artist -

[Aleksander Storm]

Max Liao, on 11 June 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

MechWarrior4 was not a simulation. It was an action game set in the BT/MW universe, and had little to nothing to do with "simulating" a MW piloting a 'Mech in the BT universe.

While I don't agree with all of the design decision of this game (yes, I am a TT purist), they seem to really be going out of their way to capture the *feel* of the piloting a BattleMech - not a giant space robot (as trademarked by Goon).


^^ This

With the exception of carrying the brand name, MW4 was as much BattleTech/MechWarrior as MechAssault (game) or RobotJox (movie).

For the people who want Giant Space Robot Action Game Deluxe with Kung Fu Grip, please, go make that game. It may be fun and I may play it. For those of us who want a BattleTech (read: a MechWarrior simulation) and not another Shogo or BF3 in super sized body armor, and have read the FAQ about staying close to the BT form of the game, 360 degree or even 180 degree twisting does not fit.

I get that in some cases game play must trump canon, and if they allowed some 'Mechs to turn as low as 45 degrees an up to 75 degrees for fluff I wouldn't get too crazy in my complaints, but anything more than 45/75 degrees (+/- 15 from standard) and in more than a VERY limited number of 'Mechs is too much. In this case, canon = proper game play for the proper feel for the BT/MW universe.

Instead of trying to turn this into a random action shooter, cope with the 'ficticious-realities' of the BattleTech universe.

------

This is Shogo, an action space robot shooter - not BattleTech. Maybe in this game (or StarSeige, or Heavy Gear, or ...) twisting all around fits, but no where does it fit in BattleTech/MechWarrior:
~

This is BattleTech:
~ http://mwomercs.com/...deo/3CWr3ZUQJeo

... uh.... StarSiege didn't actually have torso twist on its walkers. It had weapon hardpoints each with their own distinct firing arcs, which didn't always line up where you were aiming. The reticle could be moved all over the screen like in MechWarrior 3, and the viewpoint tilted somewhat to help follow it as you aimed around to the sides, allowing you to fire those weapons that could aim to a given side and do something somewhat like a 'circle of death' maneuver, but never able to bring full armaments against a target while maneuvering like that. The exception would be the tanks, obviously, which did have actual turrets.

Also on the matter of debunking myths of unrealistic mecha, Heavy Gears are very human-like, especially in movement. None of them are designed to twist all the way around- in fact, from my playing of the first game, the whole body of the mecha shifted to accomodate torso twist just as a human body would. They weren't the smoothest at this, either, and generally pretty slow when 'running' - moving fast only when they engaged their Secondary Movement System, usually a set of wheels or treads. However, this mode offered poor maneuverability for that boost in speed, so it wasn't useful in a skirmish. In addition, Heavy Gears were no match for Tanks of their universe (A particular distinction from BattleTech's relationship between BattleMechs and wimpy vehicles), and were only able to tackle them with heavy anti-tank weapons that took up most of their capacity. This, my friends, seems far more rational than BattleTech's 'Super Robots of Doom' concept. The idea that a walker has to use maneuverability and tactics to defeat a tank, not just, "Squish puny tread-box!" I'm sorry, but it's the truth. I love my BattleTech and MechWarrior, but I don't have illusions about the practicality of the BattleMech. It's certainly better than Gundams or Eva, but compared to Heavy Gears or PatLabors (another form of small, more 'special ops'-style mecha), BattleMechs may as well be Zords from Power Rangers.

You probably shouldn't try to bring up other mecha universes unless you actually know them enough to make informed statements.

As for Mechwarrior 4... I had a somewhat similar reaction to it at first, but eventually it proved itself more a simulator than an action game, especially as the expansions (and definitely MekTek's fan mod) progressed.

I will agree, FOR THE MOST PART, that Mechwarrior 3 was a great Mech simulator. However, there were a select few elements that annoyed me enough to make me not call it the best ever, such as the legging mechanics (seriously? lose a leg and suddenly the mech dies?) and the over-granular engine tuning (you're supposed to be scrounging for parts during the campaign, at least, and somehow you can change out the nuke reactor with ease between missions?! Especially with engine types that aren't supposed to be compatible with your weight?!). These are the two that come to mind most readily, but I'm sure some other details could apply.

Mechwarrior 4 also introduced the idea of BattleMechs going critical. Too close to your target, and you take serious damage when you take him down. How is that not simulating? Mechwarrior 3 just ignored the nuke reactor in terms of gameplay.

Anyway, this thread isn't about those features- this is about the 360-degree twist. I see the value in both leaving it out and including it. Personally, I'd not be bothered either way, but I will admit I'd rather see pilots deal with a torso twist limit- especially as a full twist would be hard to rationalize in terms of internal components, with how complicated the internal workings of a BattleMech are.

[shortpainter]

The 120 degree torso twist is not just an arbitrary decision by the TT creators. Mechs in the Battletech universe have skeletons, muscles and spinal cords that cannot twist all the way around. Adding 360 degree torso twist breaks the game. MW4 was a horrible adaptation of the BT universe in many, many ways.

[shortpainter]

[HydraShoc]

I think most people are forgetting what type of game this it. It is a FPS/MMO for those that do not get it is First Person Shooter/Massively Multiplayer Online. This is not a button masher RPG. This is a get down and dirty shoot'em up game with SOME rpg aspects. Earning XP for better equipment. Earning money is nothing new in FPS so it does not count. If you want to RP the game that is no problem, have fun. However many people are going to come on here and play it as a FPS. So please remember that.


The BT/MW lore is great,long running, and has a great immersion factor. I love it. I played it as a teenager. I would still play it if I could find people my own age to play it with. With that said, the way you want the game is not the way the devs are going to absolutely stick to. Also do not try to ruin this game for many others that might want to try it out by saying it should be so close to TT that we should role dice every turn to take action. In turn it should not be totally CS with mecha.

Edited by HydraShoc, 12 June 2012 - 08:35 AM.

[Teralitha]

shortpainter, on 12 June 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

The 120 degree torso twist is not just an arbitrary decision by the TT creators. Mechs in the Battletech universe have skeletons, muscles and spinal cords that cannot twist all the way around. Adding 360 degree torso twist breaks the game. MW4 was a horrible adaptation of the BT universe in many, many ways.

Once again.... they are machines.. machines can do things that humans cannot, including, 360 torso twisting.

Think of a wall clock... it can spin indefinitely, yet its part of a complicated mechanism. Or even think of a pocket watch, a thing that was created before any of us were born, and yet, an advanced piece of real technology that we take for granted.

You underestimate the mother of invention... 360 is possible. we have the brains, we have the technology. Even in our reality it exists in many many forms. Stop trying to conform to a fictional universe ruleset, created for a tabletop, and hexes, and dice rolling.

We are way beyond that now. Let it go....


Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 12 June 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[Kelthar]

SMDMadCow, on 09 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Its not a fear - 360 doesn't exist in canon, pretty simple.
The Devs aren't tying their han'ds by staying close to the TT rules, which are vast and expansive if you're using the advanced stuff. Theres a running joke that in Battletech, "There's a rule for that".

But since none of us are devs, we'll just have to wait and see.

TT was +/- 60 degrees. With arm mounted weapons being able to fire up to 120 degrees on the side of that arm only. It gave a reason for arm mounted weapons, which for armor restriction reasons are pretty silly otherwise.

I'd prefer to see the twist limited to 60 degrees because of the impact it will have on tactics. No more mindless circles of death, if you can't twist at least 90 it's really hard to just run around someone shooting. I have no problem with smaller mechs or specialized mechs having a faster rate of turn though.

Edited by Kelthar, 12 June 2012 - 08:42 AM.

[Rebmac]

Egomane, on 12 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

No, you'd still need the power to move the arms (myomers are very power hungry, I am told), to power your sensors, cockpit controls, life support, and so on. You also have to deal with the fact that a mech, while not jumping, will still fall down from time to time, and a torso like a turret could very well fall out of its socket at such a time.

We are all assuming the torso "basket" would sit ontop of the engine, why cant the engine be in the part that twists, and it's the legs that are connected by ring? I mean you lose the legs, you're out, but the engine is still intact.

Heck that way even if the "basket" did fall out, then the guns and stuff would still be intact.

Edited by Rebmac, 12 June 2012 - 08:39 AM.

[Egomane]

Rebmac, on 12 June 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Heck that way even if the basket did fall out, then the guns and stuff would still be intact.

And you would still be considered dead.

Why we need to assume that the reactor is with the lower body part, is because most of the power is needed for the movement. That's why more power, bigger reactor, equals more speed in battletech. The weapons are only secondary and can be used with the smallest reactor, or even a fosil fuel based engine.

[shortpainter]

I can understand arguments for advancing technology to offer 360 degrees of rotation, I can. I also understand that many things have to change from the TT to support a 3D real time video game. However, the 120 degree rotation is a fundamental rule of Battletech. This rule is as important as heat sinks, differing weapon ranges, armor values and max tonnage for a chassis. All of which have made it into the game so far, the rotation limit will too.

[Aleksander Storm]

Rodney28021, on 12 June 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Yeah it is Gamebreaking. That was another reason the MW X games were so unbalanced in PVP. 360degree Torso Twists are not in the TT rule for many reasons. Just because those games from MS had it, does not mean MWO should have it. Tanks have turrets, those turrets are mostly empty space. Mechs have more than half of their mass above the torso joint and some of it moves causing changing center of gravity. MS put 360degree Torso Twists in for kicks or to make the game fun for the masses, especially for the PVE. 360degree Torso Twists let the mech run at full speed while the front of mech is pointed to the rear. That is so wrong for pvp in MWO.

Actually, turrets are generally where most of the offensive capabilities (including the ammo), often the electronics, are in a tank. The only things the hull generally has is the powerplant for driving the treads and spinning the turret, and the driver (it's mostly a rather flat box with treads with most of its middle cut out for the turret). The torso of a BattleMech, in turn, almost invariably contains all the weapon systems and munitions for the machine (those few instances where the BattleTech designers put weapons, at least, in the legs seem rather ridiculous, to me; heatsinks seem a better use of those cavities)- the only real logistical limit being the power transfer for the locomotion, which is a rather big hurdle.

[Vandul]

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

I also served in the navy, on a ship. Your wrong about radars just sitting on top of someting and could 'fall out' Navy ship can and have rocked beyond 42 degrees in high seas and this doesnt happen. Not attaching the radar is dumb. They are attached.

And mechs engines are not in the legs... neither are the weapons, in general.

A mechs gyro is a powerful thing, and allows it to run, jump, fly, stand up straight etc... A swiveling 360 torso is a minor feat for a mech gyro. Sorry...

I should know, I designed it.



Support 360

I probably wasnt clear on that. The Radars are mounted, but are designed to shear away in the event of a catastrophic roll. The design is intended to unload top bearing weight in the event of a catastrophic rollover. We dont need another Poseidon. The 42 degrees is arbitrary and I should have stated so. The last time I was on a ship, it was still in the Eighties. I know, older than dirt, etc...

Im waiting for a good friend of mine to respond to a text. He was a 48E Technician with me onboard some Leahy class cruisers. Things could have changed a lot since then as well.

Anyhow, the powerplant could be carried in the basket, but the problem then is how do you get the power from the upper torso, to the legs, myomers, actuators, etc... Transmission rings, the weak link.