366 replies to this topic

[Scarlett Avignon]

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

Maybe some players would try out MWO for a week, then leave thinking they've experienced everything and are bored.

Let's take a look at some of the ways mechs can be different...

Different speeds, acceleration rates, armor amounts, armor allocation, weapons (energy, ballistic, missile, laser, PPC, autocannon, gauss rifle, machine gun, long-range missile, short range missile), ammunition amounts, ammunition types, tonnages, physical appearances, heights, sensor packages, roles, internal structure compounds, engine types, jumping abilities, heat dissipation ability...

*gasps for breath*

Just to name a few.

You're right, dude.

If we don't make a few of the mechs torso twist 360 deg, some people will leave the game because there's a lack of variety.

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 12 June 2012 - 07:14 PM.

[9thFarShot]

I already mentioned this actually, but if you feel that sarcastically trying to deface me is cool with you, then fine.

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

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.

[shortpainter]

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

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.

Nothing about this issue will alienate new players. The amount of torso twist each of the mechs have means nothing to players that are new to Battletech. There is no reference to compare it to because the last game was ten years ago and the graphics are so bad no twelve year old kid would play it. As a matter of fact, the twelve year old kids about to play in this universe for the first time are going to make lots of money for devs/PGI because they outnumber the hardcore fans. I think debates about torso twist are one of things that will alienate them.

The only official mech in MWO that may get 360 torso twist is the Raven. If it does get it and its magic torso causes more light mechs to be on the field then that is a good thing. If not, then the devs stuck to canon just as they said they would in the first place.

[Scarlett Avignon]

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

I already mentioned this actually, but if you feel that sarcastically trying to deface me is cool with you, then fine.

You've claimed that there is no reason not to have it in the game. You've even challenged several people to give you reasons. Many of us have. Yet several times in this thread, you've said that no one has. It's getting old. I've said before that your illogical arguments and blatant ignoring of people's points is making you look bad. I'm not defacing you. You're doing it to yourself.

Just because you don't like the arguments against your side doesn't mean they are invalid, or do not exist.

If you're going to be unreasonable, you get what you get.

That being said, I'll reply to this:

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

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.

If someone is really so flaky that they would refuse to play a game because there isn't one feature they wanted in it, frankly, I don't want them in the game. There are going to be plenty of things I wish were different with MWO, but I've already decided that I am going to enjoy the game PRI is developing for us. Whatever it's final form is.

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 12 June 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

shortpainter, on 12 June 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

and the graphics are so bad no twelve year old kid would play it.

*** was up with them? The graphics were so bad, it really looked like the reticle was drawn on the inside of the cockpit canopy with a crayon...

EDIT: Really? W_T_F is censored?

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 12 June 2012 - 07:42 PM.

[9thFarShot]

I'd like to point to my previous post where I acknowledge that this entire issue amounts to nothing really.

However, saying that making points about this issue amounts to nothing in order to hush the opposing side really does make it amount to nothing. The hostile environment received for making a feature request really makes it hard to contend for it.

Franklen, half the reasons given in opposition is "because it was in the tabletop rules". That is one of the stupidest reasons to not put something in a video game. Tabletop rules and video game rules don't have to and shouldn't match 100%, especially when the developer is redesigning the mechs and technology depicted.

I've already given the technological reasons why there is no excuse to not have full rotation torsos, and half the replies I get back don't even make an effort to counter that, but rather complain about going against the tabletop rules.

It's frustrating to try and make a point, and a very sound one, and then get shot down because you people don't want changes to your precious BattleTech, then get accused of being ignorant or shutting out other people.

[9thFarShot]

Also, I don't understand how you believe my argument to be illogical.

- I have given sound technological reasons for full rotation torsos to exist.
- Gameplay-wise, if restricted to certain mechs, which has been the proposition the entire time, it can increase excitement.
- In reality, it would only add to the variety of gameplay.

I put the disclaimer in that I acknowledge that it won't affect whether I play or not or whether other people play because this one issue won't. I also say that things like this start killing franchises because if MWO were a clone of BattleTech, it wouldn't garner much interest outside of the existing fanbase. Don't confuse these two things, they are distinct and separate. One is an argument for open-mindedness on my part. The other is for open-mindedness on your part.

Part of requesting this feature is that the devs will ultimately decide it. The issue I have with some of you is that you're basically saying shut up, we don't want your opinion or argument on this matter.

As for being unreasonable, that's stupid because I could have just left it at my first post and have been done with it. Instead, I've considered arguments against it and countered them. I suppose that if we always disagree on this, we can go back and forth indefinitely.

My point will always reduce down to, "It makes sense technology-wise and gameplay-wise."

[Sychodemus]

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

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.

You have repeatedly stated opinions couched as unassailable fact or when citing fact you have exaggerated it.

However, that is irrelevant. We are all fans and we all know that there are multiple potential solutions to any of these issues.

The game is about fun and everyone has different standards as to what fun is. These are all hypothetical scenarios anyway. The truth of the matter is that none of us have any real solid ground to stand on as far as MWO arguments go. We do have to wait and see, because even if all of the ranting and raving was right, it could not and should not affect what PGI is doing. They are the artists. We are the audience. We cannot honestly criticize their work until we see it in its finished form.



9thFarShot, I appreciate your passion for the topic at hand, but I sincerely advise that we let others debate it for awhile. When a few posters keep going back and forth like this, threads tend to get locked. Then this same topic will reemerge as a new thread and all of the same arguments (and often posts themselves) will be thrown into the ring again.

Have a good night at any rate.*

*or day.

Edited for something I can't remember.

Edited by Sychodemus, 12 June 2012 - 08:02 PM.

[Teralitha]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 June 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Let's take a look at some of the ways mechs can be different...

Different speeds, acceleration rates, armor amounts, armor allocation, weapons (energy, ballistic, missile, laser, PPC, autocannon, gauss rifle, machine gun, long-range missile, short range missile), ammunition amounts, ammunition types, tonnages, physical appearances, heights, sensor packages, roles, internal structure compounds, engine types, jumping abilities, heat dissipation ability...

*gasps for breath*

Just to name a few.

You're right, dude.

If we don't make a few of the mechs torso twist 360 deg, some people will leave the game because there's a lack of variety.

Well.. I wont leave the game... but it will be ... 'less of a game' Well, I might get tired of it later on, if it bugs me enough. Things that nag at you for awhile, eventually may turn into deal breakers.


Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 12 June 2012 - 08:03 PM.

[Teralitha]

shortpainter, on 12 June 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

The only official mech in MWO that may get 360 torso twist is the Raven. If it does get it and its magic torso causes more light mechs to be on the field then that is a good thing. If not, then the devs stuck to canon just as they said they would in the first place.

You have misquoted the devs. They said they woud stick to canon as much as possible. And that they will add or change features to make gameplay more fun and interesting, TO MAKE TT RULES LAWYERS HAPPY FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME, like 360


Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 12 June 2012 - 08:08 PM.

[shortpainter]

You guys ever watch a Hollywood version of a movie adapted from a book or comic? Ever seen everybody get angry 'cause the movie was so different from the book? That problem is at the heart of this discussion. Unlike Hollywood, this game is being made by guys who want to do justice to the source material. That is the reason people are arguing for following the rules of the TT game concerning 360. With that said, even the most hardcore fan knows some things will be changed or different. However, some things should not be changed no matter how logical, realistic, silly or awesome it would be. Think about this, many Hollywood movies were ruined by someone saying "you know what would be cool? Lets change this up just because we can...". People who don't understand the dangerous line the devs are walking right now will never understand why certain features will be in the game or not. Making games is very hard work, it cannot be done by one person, and it can all fall apart real fast. I suggest we ask the devs about this next time they open their communications to the community. That is all we can do.

Still...If I had to guess, I'd say 360 torso is already in the game. If it is, it was most likely hotly debated before it got put in.

[Teralitha]

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.

[9thFarShot]

Yeah, I need to step away from this. I already made my point, back in my first post actually, so I'm done for now.

Still hoping 360 makes it for certain mechs.

[Tincan Nightmare]

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.

[Scarlett Avignon]

9thFarShot, on 12 June 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

Franklen, half the reasons given in opposition is "because it was in the tabletop rules".

Even in that post you just ignored half of the replies. That is why your arguments are illogical. You aren't arguing. You're soapboxing, then soapboxing the same thing again when someone answers you, just doing it louder.

I actually agree with you, "Because it is in TT" is a bad reason. However, there are reasons it is in TT, and there were multitudes of other reasons given in this thread that didn't mention TT once.

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.

Thank you, Teralithia. Pointing out that 360 deg torso twisting was in MW4, then claiming MW4 was balanced is all the argument against it I could ever need.

Almost without fail, anyone who claims to like MW4 and say it was a good MW game, started out playing that one. MW4 was easily the "Kindgom of the Crystal Skull" of Mechwarrior titles. Yeah, it was flashy and had the biggest budget of any of the titles. Hell, it even had potential, but in the end, it barely seemed like it belonged with the others.

If you enjoy the enhanced maneuverability, dumbed down atmosphere, and over-the-top abilities of that title, by all means, there are plenty of Japanese Mecha games that will give you exactly what you are looking for.

Please, though, stop trying to make this game something it isn't, and just let this Mechwarrior be a true Mechwarrior game.

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 12 June 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[LordDeathStrike]

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....

mechs use metal muscles to move, how many creatures can use their muscles to spin around endlessly?

[Scarlett Avignon]

LordDeathStrike, on 12 June 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

mechs use metal muscles to move, how many creatures can use their muscles to spin around endlessly?

Well, to be fair, mechs also make use of conventional servo-actuators, but they are usually for high-precision, low-load functions (e.g., fingers, weapon mounts.) Turning half of the mech's mass seems like it would require the use of myomers, however. In which case, there would not really be a feasible way to make a torso twist a full 360 deg.

[Teralitha]

sigh... mechs are not people.


Support 360

Edited by Teralitha, 12 June 2012 - 11:15 PM.

[Gorith]

Teralitha, on 12 June 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

sigh... mechs are not people.

No they are not. They are giant robots. In this case giant robots from the battletech universe that you have claimed you want to play a game in and that you are a simulationist. Yet you want to have the existing technologies and physics of that fictional world substituted for physics and technology that exists in this world. Thats not what a simulationist wants generaly as the game isn't to simulate what a battlemech would be like if it existed in our world but what piloting a mech is like in that fictional world...

But I guess it doesn't matter as anytime someone says something you don't like in this topic you shrug it off and claim that they must just be bad and don't want to deal with it.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Teralitha, on 12 June 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

sigh... mechs are not people.


Support 360

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



Support good gameplay mechanics.

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 13 June 2012 - 04:42 AM.