366 replies to this topic

[9thFarShot]

Egomane, on 12 June 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

What has been forgotten, by those that argue for a 360° torso, is that this game is settled within a universe, that has been constantly updated for 30 years. Nowhere in that universe is a full rotating torso ever mentioned. We hold no rights to this universe. The devs do, for the small part of creating a video game.

It is debatable to say they're updating the universe when in fact they're sticking to dated mechanics.

Egomane, on 12 June 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

The devs may depart from the board game, in fact they already did that, but I doubt they will depart from the universe. They are way to much immersed into it and way to much fans of it, to change it on a whim. They would need a good reason to do so, to convince themself that it is necessary. If they find that reason I am pretty sure they will tell us. But the ******** and bickering about it, shown by its supporters, will not help their cause to implement the idea. Please keep it civil!

I'm not sure how getting rid of a gameplay mechanic from a board game is departing from the universe. The universe is the set of lore that makes the universe unique. If House Steiner and Davion were best friends and fought side by side, that would be something to worry about. A Jenner turning 360 because it makes technical sense? [sarcasm] Oh god, someone call the canon police and start flaming the guys who want stuff to make sense! [/sarcasm]

Egomane, on 12 June 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Congratulation, that is what we are talking about. It is a weakness to be exploited. It is something that needs,to be in the game.

When every mech has the same weakness, it ceases being a weakness. Weak and strong are relative terms. You want limited turning to be a weakness? Then there has to be unlimited turning for it to be weak in comparison.

Egomane, on 12 June 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Not the universe is dated, the tabletop system is. But just because a game, settled within the universe is dated, doesn't mean the universe has to change.

To reiterate, I'm at a loss as to why changing a board games mechanic changes the universe.

Egomane, on 12 June 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Oh... and... is it wrong to be a fanboy? Better tell that the guys at PGI before its to late, because they have said numerous times that they are fanboys of the franchise and the battletech universe.

I'm saying sticking to dated rules to satisfy fanboys is wrong. I'm a fanboy, but that doesn't mean I blindly want to stick to limited rotation because some guys thirty years ago decided it would be best for a board game.

Edited by 9thFarShot, 12 June 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[Skylarr]

I do not have any of my books with, but, could someone verify if Torso twist is in Total Warfair. I believe "Flippy Arms" has been in the game for a long time. Any mech that does not have a Lower Arm Actuator or a Hand Actuator can flip their arms and fire their Arm mounted weapons into their rear firing arch. This is limited to only a could Mechs. That Catapult is one of these.

[Egomane]

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

I'm saying sticking to dated rules to satisfy fanboys is wrong. I'm a fanboy, but that doesn't mean I blindly want to stick to limited rotation because some guys thirty years ago decided it would be best for a board game.

It is not part of the board game, it is part of the universe. the board game only reflects that. It could also reflect a 360° twist, but it doesn't because it is not part of the universe. How many times do I have to write, that it is a change to the universe before you get it?

@Skylarr
Torso-twisting can be found within the Total Warfare rules. Flipping arms is there as well and can be done instead of a torso twist.

For all the others... Yes, in the tabletop you can either flip or twist. Within the universe you can do both. Notice the difference between the two, please!

[Skylarr]

Would love to see this have 360 rotation

[StonedDead]

I have used a vulture in MW4 against lights. It had 360 deg twist. It helped a little, but not much. They just ran circles around me while I twisted to follow them. They ran faster than the torso twisted. It was actually easier to twist back the other direction and throw the mech in reverse to meet them as they came around. It was only useful to me when I was fighting a single light mech. I don't think it would be a huge deal to have a couple that could, but then again, I really don't care one way or the other.

[Promptus]

I've given this 360 thing a lot of thought and tbh I think I've been swayed. I'm all for it now. But spending the better part of the day going over it in my head I feel we shouldn't stop there. There are other things that should be considered. Here's a meager list:

1. Plasma whips.

Having a plasma whip or two on my mech would be bad to the bone. Imagine the humiliation you could bring 'dominating' the competition on the battlefield. Too bad it's not TT canon.

2. Long tom artillery.

Can you imagine the horror your enemies would face as your scout jenner calls out bombardment, danger close? Bits and pieces everywhere as the area is covered with splash damage. (This is getting me a little excited, I have to admit.)

3. Beam shield.

Pew pew lasers? Forgetaboutit! A beam shield would just deflect the beams away. If you could angle it right maybe you can even deflect the beams back to them.

4. Cloaking devices (in 3049)

WHAT scout mech? Nobody here but us chickens. Relaying your position all day errday. Or for the fashion inclined:


5. Hover jets

Who needs those pesky TT-based movement rules, amirite? Glide to position in style.

Seriously, guys. Let's just dump that TT garbage altogether. Think of the possibilities!

[shortpainter]

You dah man, Promptus. lol

[I R O N Patriot]

Teralitha, on 09 June 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

mw4 had it, will we see some mechs in mwo with 360? I loved those mechs with 360 twist....

Raven Better Have it! Or :ph34r:'s in your sleep!

[Grendel408]

360 degree torso twist on 'Mechs... NO! Sorry... some 'Mechs only have a 180 degree firing arc (and this is based off of TT rules and lore).

Some 'Mechs do have more than a 180 degree torso twist available to them, but not all 'Mechs... so if the twist capabilities of 'Mechs is represented by the 'Mechs in the TROs (Technical Read-Outs)... then only a select few will be able to have more torso twisting range than others... don't think this gives you any advantage at all... you'll have to make sure that sneaky Jenner or Cicada don't sneak up behind you and core your rear armor

[Grendel408]

Promptus, on 12 June 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

I've given this 360 thing a lot of thought and tbh I think I've been swayed. I'm all for it now. But spending the better part of the day going over it in my head I feel we shouldn't stop there. There are other things that should be considered. Here's a meager list:
...
Who needs those pesky TT-based movement rules, amirite? Glide to position in style.

Seriously, guys. Let's just dump that TT garbage altogether. Think of the possibilities!

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.

[Sychodemus]

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.

[Thomas Hogarth]

My biggest problem with 360 torso twist, which I did raise earlier but haven't heard a counter to, is simple:

A 'Mech with 360 twist is simply easier to use than a 'Mech without in my opinion. When I drove Thanantoses and Ravens in MW4, they were always easier to pilot. Tactics became much more FPS style, and I ended up losing out. It wasn't as difficult. And brawling against those 'Mechs was more difficult. MW4 marginalized the importance of going after rear armor which was further aggravated on 'Mechs with 360 twist.

I have no problems with 'Mechs having a lot of torso range. But 360 merely removes one of the defining pieces of tactical strategy, and removes the need for having as much maneuvering skill. Understand that this is my point of view - others may find it more difficult to pilot 360 twist 'Mechs. But if removing 360 twist 'Mechs means some people don't have access to what they find easier to fight, and other people don't have to worry about 'Mechs they aren't good in, all at the same time emphasizing skill at maneuvering your 'Mech, what's lost? Those that find 360 'Mechs more difficult will never have to deal with it, and those that find 360 twist easier are merely using the same 'Mechs as everyone else, which is merely placing everyone on equal footing in terms of equipment. Skill becomes the deciding factor.

[edit] And one more thing. Tanks in this universe have almost no advantages over 'Mechs. They're squishy and can't handle terrain very well at all. They do two things somewhat better: Missile weapons, due to ignoring heat, and turrets, which can face in any direction. If we allow some 'Mechs to twist 360, you remove the advantage that tanks have. Sure, at this time there will be no tanks in MWO, but that may change in the future. Best to keep the strengths and weaknesses of the 'Mechs as balanced by the lore in case PGI decides to do combined arms in the future.

Edited by Thomas Hogarth, 12 June 2012 - 03:22 PM.

[Grendel408]

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.

'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...

[Gorith]

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

When every mech has the same weakness, it ceases being a weakness. Weak and strong are relative terms. You want limited turning to be a weakness? Then there has to be unlimited turning for it to be weak in comparison.

A weakness is a weakness it does not become less of a weakness because its shared. To use an example that applies here. As humans we cannot twist our torso to be directly facing backwards so in a fight if someone manages to get behind us somehow they have a second or so (depending on the training of both individuals) that they can attack or whatever their training or instinct dictates without as much threat as being in front of us.

Also a simulation fo something in a fictional world using more or less realistic physics does not make it any more or any less a simulation. The thing you are simulating does not exist therefor reality does not apply to whether you can consider it a sim or an action game

[Scarlett Avignon]

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

When every mech has the same weakness, it ceases being a weakness.

That's quite possibly the silliest, least thought out thing I've ever read. A weakness is a weakness. Every human being has a weak spot. Hit them in the throat. I assure you, just because everyone has it, doesn't mean it isn't a weakness.

Your arguments are just getting worse and worse. Please stop.

[Scarlett Avignon]

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.

Hey, Gren...think you missed Promptus' /sarcasm at the end there...

[9thFarShot]

I guess I should clarify that I was referring to weaknesses in terms of balance. Obviously the mere fact we're mortal is a weakness. 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.

However, countering my argument on that one basis or the basis of "it's not in the BT ruleset" is not good enough in my opinion. I made several points that still stand up and no one's tackled yet. Namely, the fact that tactically it is stupid to limit your range of motion, and also the fact that the technology for rotating large loads is already here. My argument is not based on the fact that dated lore says they can't. It's based on the fact that there is no realistic excuse for limiting torso range on a mech. There are reasons for certain mechs to have limits. For instance, an Atlas's arms might collide with its legs. I'd definitely want its torso range limited. But on an urbanmech or a Flea, there is no excuse. On reverse jointed mechs, they're already departing from the humanoid model.

As for Promptus, the comparison between allowing 360 and allowing things like laser whips is ludicrous. Ever heard of the Nazi Germany argument? It's where you take an idea and try to disprove it or discredit it by going to an extreme. Things like, "we shouldn't have zepellins because Nazis had them."

Like I said, I'm still waiting for someone to logically counter me on my points instead of saying "because guys thirty years ago said no" or because they blew it out of proportion with an aforementioned Nazi-argument.

[SMDMadCow]

I can see the arguments for and against the 360 torso twist.
But it's not supported by canon, and really seems to be an unnessecary extravagance.

And no, it's not beacuse of the Hex base, you can easliy do a 360 twist on a hex base. The game designers chose not too.

[Victor Morson]

Egomane, on 12 June 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

That car tire doesn't need to be controled in a direct way. Try doing that with legs!

And in the Battletech universe there is no magical, momentum negating, magic either. The law of cause and effect is still intact. So no, not anything is possible. Even this Sci-fi setting has its limitations. If you want to capture and simulate this setting you can not do anything you want.

I think a bigger point to make is tank turrets can move indefinitey in a 360 degree spin. Any mechanical construction can do that if it's designed to. 'mechs are pretty much walking tanks.

Killashnikov, on 12 June 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

The biggest problem with implementing the 360 twist in the logic of the battletech unierse is that the mech relies on the instinctive balance and senses of the human pilot to keep it upright, and very few people can turn their torso much more than 90 degrees, thus the pilot's brain isnt wired right to balance the mech with the torso pointing backwards and the legs pointing forwards... Try staying upright while running forwards and looking (and aiming at) someone running after you.

This is total bunk honestly. People don't walk on all fours. People don't have chicken legs. People don't have arms that socket up and backwards and they sure can't flip them backwards. Balancing a gyro has absolutely nothing to do with anatomy.

[SMDMadCow]

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

I guess I should clarify that I was referring to weaknesses in terms of balance. Obviously the mere fact we're mortal is a weakness. 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.

However, countering my argument on that one basis or the basis of "it's not in the BT ruleset" is not good enough in my opinion. I made several points that still stand up and no one's tackled yet. Namely, the fact that tactically it is stupid to limit your range of motion, and also the fact that the technology for rotating large loads is already here. My argument is not based on the fact that dated lore says they can't. It's based on the fact that there is no realistic excuse for limiting torso range on a mech. There are reasons for certain mechs to have limits. For instance, an Atlas's arms might collide with its legs. I'd definitely want its torso range limited. But on an urbanmech or a Flea, there is no excuse. On reverse jointed mechs, they're already departing from the humanoid model.

As for Promptus, the comparison between allowing 360 and allowing things like laser whips is ludicrous. Ever heard of the Nazi Germany argument? It's where you take an idea and try to disprove it or discredit it by going to an extreme. Things like, "we shouldn't have zepellins because Nazis had them."

Like I said, I'm still waiting for someone to logically counter me on my points instead of saying "because guys thirty years ago said no" or because they blew it out of proportion with an aforementioned Nazi-argument.

Goodwin's Law - lock it down.