271 replies to this topic

[Skymech]

Teralitha, on 14 June 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

I will, on the mechs that have that. I will also enjoy the challenging diversity of driving a 360 mech when I get bored of the limited torso mechs.

Could you enjoy it quietly?

[Grendel408]

360 torso twist... I said it in another thread... I'll say it again... NOT CANON!

So yeah... voted no... it's only available on a select few 'Mechs, and even then, those aren't available during the current timeline if I'm to remember correctly. Firing arcs from TT should be used and honored...

[Captain Mittens]

In my opinion, if you want 360 turret, then include tanks in the game, and that can be their thing, 360 twist in exchange for lower mobility, and being short.

[alben5k]

Capn Crunk, on 14 June 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

In my opinion, if you want 360 turret, then include tanks in the game, and that can be their thing, 360 twist in exchange for lower mobility, and being short.

I agree. We should have a poll on whether tanks should be in the game.

[Roland]

I'm gonna beat this dead horse until it gets up and gallops away.

[Skymech]

Roland, on 14 June 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

I'm gonna beat this dead horse until it gets up and gallops away.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Pro 360 present rock solid arguments... against 360 puts them down citing TT rukles or personal attacks... I love it.


Dober, we know we are correct. These guys really have nothing else other than 'me no like 360, or (slams fist on table)"it not rulebook!"

Accusation of personal attacks, followed by an implication that anything the opposition says is of no value, and an insinuation that the other side speaks live cavemen. Okay.

But maybe it's just in response to other personal attacks. That'd be fair. Hold on while I find all the personal attacks in this thread.

gamesguy, on 13 June 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

This is battletech, they didn't even invent tracer rounds till the 23rd century.
The average IQ in battletech must be like 50, it would explain a lot actually.

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

We know it would explain yours....

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

They are rock solid points. Its not my fault their vision is blocked by a peice of paper with words on it.

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

You want me to add in a vote option that accounts for you having only played TT 3 times? Are you really that dense?

Teralitha, on 14 June 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Why do you ignore the results, in your narrow minded way?

Teralitha, on 14 June 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

Let me paint a picture for you, and ill try to keep it as simple as possible so that everyone gets it...

Take another game... for example that everyone is familiar with... Chess. A simple game involving 16 peices on a 64x64 board. In chess, there are literally a billion ways to play and win the game, and is why so many people spend their entire lives trying to master it.

Now take a game like mechwarrior. With far less ways to play and win, and can be mastered in a week. Bored now... *goes off to find a new game*

Do ya get it? If you dont get this... you truly are dense and theres no hope for you and you should not be reproducing, for the good of the human race.

That last one was edited to include "for the good of the human race". Brilliant.

Teralitha, on 14 June 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

What the majority truly represent in this poll, are hardcore TT players who dont know what diversity in a VIDEO game is and does and vote against solely on the fact that it isnt in the "rules"

And that's before going back to the the thread you requested be locked. Wonder how many I'd find in there...

Edited by Thomas Hogarth, 14 June 2012 - 10:14 AM.

[Artifice]

Some Mechs have absolutely zero combat value, like the Urbie.

Torso twist could be the deciding factor for the plethora of freaking useless Mechs.

Support greater than 120 Twist! At the very least 180!!!

P.s. Don't forget that it can go both ways, some chassis maybe have less. Dirty, evil Mech on Urbie spawn.

Edited by Artifice, 14 June 2012 - 10:26 AM.

[clutchgetspaid]

[Vasces Diablo]

45 degrees off center in either direction with a couple mechs that can do more as a " perk".

[Aleksander Storm]

Vasces Diablo, on 14 June 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

45 degrees off center in either direction with a couple mechs that can do more as a " perk".

It's already been demonstrated in videos that 135° off center in either direction is a range. Besides, TT rules say 120° (which, I think with house rules, is either total or in either direction); your suggestion would be more restricting than even that. Nice one.

[Promptus]

Speaking of chess. I think all the pieces on the board should be able to move however they want. For diversity. I'm tired of those old TT "L" shape moves by knights, Rooks can only move up or down. What's with that? Bishops? Diagonal? Are you kidding me? What troglodyte wants to keep playing by those primitive TT rules. "Ugh. Me King. Me move only 1 square."

[BFalcon]

Sesambrot, on 14 June 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

what previous thread?

Besides, did you miss the other examples? Cranes, Excavators?
You know, there's some huge examples for both of them out there...
Some of which actually are as big, or even bigger than a mechs torso and weigh just as much.
Whether the joint still works after taking damage or an impact has nothing to do with the way it is powered.
If the bearing takes damage and breaks, it won't budge, whether a myomer or a hydraulic actuator was used to move it is irrelevant.

As for the tactical side of your argument; I didn't account for that, and never claimed I would...
...but if I must; when you are moving in a formation, no one is moving backwards, so how is anyone capable of guarding someone elses rear angle?

For the previous thread, go look for it - it was started by the same OP...

As for covering each other's rear arcs, go google "overlapping fire zones" and remember that arm weapons on mechs can fire behind (but not directly behind) a mech, so could hit a target that was behind a friendly mech. Also remember that, once fighting starts, the Lance would likely have broken formation in order to fight more effectively (depending on situation).

With regards the falling over, a myomer bundle would actually help with the torsion in just the same way as your own muscles help when you fall over - by tensing and taking some of the strain. The excavators and cranes also only deal with loads in one direction - a mech torso would need to worry about either arm being blown off and impacts from any direction. It's true that you could probably come up with a 360 degree mechanism, but it's more down to the point as to whether the technologically-backward (in some ways) Houses of the 31st century would bother overcoming a problem that most would not bother to acknowledge exists (if you want your mech to turn, then turn). The expense would likely exceed the potential benefits, I suspect would be the view.

[Z3R0115]

My vote is no 360 twist, I wasn't a fan of MW4's mechanics, IMO MW3 did the best out of all of them
and I feel like it takes away from the difficulty of fighting if you can just run by and turn all the way around and keep shooting.

Edited by Z3R0115, 14 June 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[Steel Talon]

Everything this about 1 mech?
2 if urbie added...
+ 360 turntable can be revoked to heavier mech for balancement reasons in future if needed

Just give it to raven it deserves it!

For TT not canon fanz ... pls click here ... do not return thx.

[BlindProphet]

Steel Talon, on 14 June 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Everything this about 1 mech?
2 if urbie added...
+ 360 turntable can be revoked to heavier mech for balancement reasons in future if needed

Just give it to raven it deserves it!

For TT not canon fanz ... pls click here ... do not return thx.

Explain to me why the raven deserves it?

Also your opinion is not more valid than ours.

[CeeKay Boques]

I liked 360 twists in MW4, on a few select chassis, made them special. However, I'm going to have to take the other side so as not to be ASSociated with its champions in this thread.

[Steel Talon]

blindprophet, on 14 June 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Explain to me why the raven deserves it?

Also your opinion is not more valid than ours.

Just wanted to point those TT lawyers that there is game that follow TT rules in all points they can probably think of
MWO will always ne closer to MW games than TT & every aspect adding diversity helps a lot

Why raven deserves it?
Cause i guess there will be 1 raven on 3 commandos & on 10 jenners cause its undergunned, slower & dependant on agility
& jeah in MWLL I played rave especially for 360 for hit & run & hit while running

Edited by Steel Talon, 14 June 2012 - 12:17 PM.

[Big Iron]

360 torso twist should be in the game. Some mechs have it and some don't. It has its advantages but it could also have disadvantages. A good hit will sent a 360 mech spinning.

[BlindProphet]

Steel Talon, on 14 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

Just wanted to point those TT lawyers that there is game that follow TT rules in all points they can probably think of
MWO will always ne closer to MW games than TT & every aspect adding diversity helps a lot

No not every aspect adding to diversity helps a lot. As has been stated before....

And no you were not just stating that, your implication is that anyone who likes the TT should not be here. That is more than just suggesting that people who like the TT should try out MWT.

Quote

Why raven deserves it?
Cause i guess there will be 1 raven on 3 commandos & on 10 jenners cause its undergunned, slower & dependant on agility
& jeah in MWLL I played rave especially for 360 for hit & run & hit while running

So it deserves it because you enjoy the mechanic to use it for shooting while running away. As well as you believe because its slower and dependent on agility because its more of scout than an attack light it deserves to have a 360 torso twist.

I don't agree with that.