271 replies to this topic

[SCUBASTEVE]

It might negate some of the advantage to having a faster mech depending on how fast the torso can twist in relation to how fast a mech is. I think they should give certain Mechs a greater turning radius then others. Make it realistic and dependent on the mech!

[MilitantMonk]

Is this the point in time where someone says something like:

"If you liked MW4 so much...."

[Aleksander Storm]

The supposed 'extra skill' for piloting while using torso twist shows up well before the 360 mark, really. The moment the forward direction is out of view (I think viewing angle is around 60-70° ..?), you need to develop that skill, which is with most 'Mechs without the 360° torso twist, anyway. Next.

Edited by Aleksander Storm, 13 June 2012 - 08:40 AM.

[Teralitha]

Aleksander Storm, on 13 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

It's true. However, Teralitha just clings to his flawed falsehoods as 'fact' and 'evidence' that he's right, regardless. He's in his own little world. I played MW4, I made good use of the 'Mechs with 360 and without... I can tell you it's not harder to pilot. However, you can be lured into being a derp and just try and follow an enemy 'Mech outrunning your twist speed, never catching up, as they rip you apart...

I have followed after, and taken out many a vulture pilot who thought this litte strategy would guarentee them a win. Though admittedly, I designed mechs for taking out vultures who did this. I remember dueling catapult vs vulture, cata won... why? because a retreating mech is the one at a disadvantage. 360 is not going to break MWO, its only adds flavor.


Alek, every point I argue is based on facts and experience.

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 08:41 AM.

[Aleksander Storm]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

I have followed after, and taken out many a vulture pilot who thought this litte strategy would guarentee them a win. Though admittedly, I designed mechs for taking out vultures who did this. I remember dueling catapult vs vulture, cata won... why? because a retreating mech is the one at a disadvantage. 360 is not going to break MWO, its only adds flavor.

Alek, every point I argue is based on facts and experience.

Not really. Your points are more based on your preference for a playstyle that everyone else would be able to do without, but you seem to cling to desperately. Note the polls already turn against you.

Aleksander Storm, on 13 June 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

The supposed 'extra skill' for piloting while using torso twist shows up well before the 360 mark, really. The moment the forward direction is out of view (I think viewing angle is around 60-70° ..?), you need to develop that skill, which is with most 'Mechs without the 360° torso twist, anyway. Next.

[Carl Wrede]

Just a point, its not just the TT. 360 degree was not possible in any MW or BT computer game either until the fateful MW4.

[BlindProphet]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

I have followed after, and taken out many a vulture pilot who thought this litte strategy would guarentee them a win. Though admittedly, I designed mechs for taking out vultures who did this. I remember dueling catapult vs vulture, cata won... why? because a retreating mech is the one at a disadvantage. 360 is not going to break MWO, its only adds flavor.


Alek, every point I argue is based on facts and experience.

Well the Vulture is armored with wet tissue paper...

Beyond that I like how I'm now a hardcore TT person because I don't like 360 twisting, because both the rules in TT don't support this, nor do I particularly like the mechanic...

I can easily explain how a mech could 360 torso twist but, that doesn't mean I want it in the game.

[TKG]

when you think about it the list of mechs likely to have 360 was probably limited, the onyl one I can immediately think of is the rifleman, and possibly the warhammer and or black jack* because of how their torso and waist are designed it makes sense. In respects that klunky box known as the jagermech is kind of SOL.

However I do for gameplay perspective tend to lean towards what MW3 did where I dont recall there being a 360, and some mechs flat out lacked torso twist at all the Bushwhacker and Owens wqere prime examples of this. Such intircacies force the player to think a little harder about how to pilot their ride instead of just 'run and gun'.


*Sill not 100% sure the BJ would have 360 but it looks like it might.

Edited by TKG, 13 June 2012 - 08:48 AM.

[shortpainter]

Only clans get 360, right?

[Teralitha]

I think its important to note that only 4 mechs(that I recall) out of about a 100 chassis were 360 torso twist in MW4.....

[Aleksander Storm]

TKG, on 13 June 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

when you think about it the list of mechs likely to have 360 was probably limited, the onyl one I can immediately think of is the rifleman, and possibly the warhammer and or black jack* because of how their torso and waist are designed it makes sense. In respects that klunky box known as the jagermech is kind of SOL.

However I do for gameplay perspective tend to lean towards what MW3 did where I dont recall there being a 360, and some mechs flat out lacked torso twist at all the Bushwhacker and Owens wqere prime examples of this. Such intircacies force the player to think a little harder about how to pilot their ride instead of just 'run and gun'.


*Sill not 100% sure the BJ would have 360 but it looks like it might.

Doubt the Warhammer would have it, honestly. The Rifleman and the Blackjack, sure, I could see that.

As for the Bushwacker? I'm sure it had at least 180° (90° per side). But the one thing that was awesome in MW3 was the free-roaming reticle aim. I just wish they had proper pulse lasers, and gave the continuous beam effect to the standard/ER lasers for a fraction of a second. Another notch against MW3, there, alongside the legging stupidity and the engine granularity.

Edited by Aleksander Storm, 13 June 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[Nintenja]

If it is in TT then go for it. Anything can be balanced.
Pro: 360
Con: slow turret speed

Steven McWayne, on 13 June 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

Makes no sense for the hardwiring stuff.
You will just cut off the wires to the legs after some 360° turns

Trust me. Engineers have already solved that problem. I doubt it will be an issue in 1000 years.

Edited by Nintenja, 13 June 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[Teralitha]

Aleksander Storm, on 13 June 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Not really. Your points are more based on your preference for a playstyle that everyone else would be able to do without, but you seem to cling to desperately. Note the polls already turn against you.

If I created a poll about whether or not to add mech explosions and splash damage it would get voted down too because its not TT. Yet, its in the game. I can still win, this is a simulation after all... not TT

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 08:51 AM.

[CCC Dober]

OP: Appreciate the effort, but as you clearly see ... the 'religious' folks are easy to anger. You could have just replaced 360 for 'evolution' or 'Clan' or 'Omni Mechs' or 'LosTech' for the same result. Vocal minority and trolls gonna drown your reason ... with 'numbers', 'stats' and 'laws' LOL

Anyway, devs got this under control and if it wasn't for them, we'd be getting nowhere. That itself giives me hope that we gonna see a lot of improvement, not just 360 torsos. This universe must expand beyond our limited scope to succeed 'out there'. Think bigger

Cheers =)

[Jukebox1986]

Well anyway, the majority of players voting dont like it. But i like to see more votes to make sure...

[eZZip]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Exactly... it takes practice... hence higher skill.

You've got to be joking. Every damn little thing takes practice, and some more than others. You don't need any special skill to pilot a mech that can rotate all the way. It's about as hard as going in reverse and shooting in front of you, except you never get caught with your pants down when somebody moves out of your field of fire; it's hardest to maneuver when your torso is perpendicular to your legs, and it gets easier as you rotate either way from that point. If you think this takes a significant amount of skill, then I'd hate to see you play any game that has a respectable and large e-sports community.

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

If I created a poll about whether or not to add mech explosions and splash damage it would get voted down too because its not TT. Yet, its in the game. I can still win, this is a simulation after all... not TT

Lolol. Nowhere did devs say that there would be mechs exploding aside from ammo explosions (which are almost universally wanted). Mechs, like any actual real-life machine, have limitations, and torso twist was one of them.

CCC Dober, on 13 June 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

OP: Appreciate the effort, but as you clearly see ... the 'religious' folks are easy to anger. You could have just replaced 360 for 'evolution' or 'Clan' or 'Omni Mechs' or 'LosTech' for the same result. Vocal minority and trolls gonna drown your reason ... with 'numbers', 'stats' and 'laws' LOL

Anyway, devs got this under control and if it wasn't for them, we'd be getting nowhere. That itself giives me hope that we gonna see a lot of improvement, not just 360 torsos. This universe must expand beyond our limited scope to succeed 'out there'. Think bigger

This is one of the most ironic things I've ever seen. People beat you with actual arguments? Oh no, they're 'religious'! Did you think that some people don't want torso twisting because they think it'll make the game better?

Edited by eZZip, 13 June 2012 - 08:58 AM.

[SMDMadCow]

This poll is not set up well. Who cares if they are pro TT or not. The poll should just be Yes/No/Indifferent and see if the general player base agrees or not with 360.

[Aleksander Storm]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

If I created a poll about whether or not to add mech explosions and splash damage it would get voted down too because its not TT. Yet, its in the game. I can still win, this is a simulation after all... not TT

And you'll note there's actually quite a few on the poll who say they don't care about TT, but still don't want torso twist. Around as many as the purists votes. This isn't about TT vs non TT, and you made sure it wasn't with the poll options.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

I think its important to note that only 4 mechs(that I recall) out of about a 100 chassis were 360 torso twist in MW4.....

Of which, only one fits in timeline(and it's a stretch). So not much of value will be lost if they omit it, and immersion loss for individuals who don't like 360 for any reason can be avoided.

Sounds like a win.

All of that aside. I polled my MW4 group to see who thought 360 was more difficult. Out of eleven, eleven found 360 to be easier. Based on that (admittedly incomplete) data set, removing 360 would increase difficulty save for a very small group of individuals that find 360 to be a challenge. The net result would be increased challenge for most players, with a small percentage of players fighting in a torso style they find easier.

If you really wanted to support your '360 is more difficult' claim, you could add a secondary poll which asks if 360 is more difficult than normal twist or not.

[Teralitha]

eZZip, on 13 June 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

You've got to be joking. Every damn little thing takes practice, and some more than others. You don't need any special skill to pilot a mech that can rotate all the way. It's about as hard as going in reverse and shooting in front of you, except you never get caught with your pants down when somebody moves out of your field of fire; it's hardest to maneuver when your torso is perpendicular to your legs, and it gets easier as you rotate either way from that point. If you think this takes a significant amount of skill, then I'd hate to see you play any game that has a respectable and large e-sports community.

*blinks*... huh.. I suggest, just as an experiment.... (hear me out) Go to a firing range, walk toward the target firing your gun, Then, walk backards firing at target. Compare results.