271 replies to this topic

[eZZip]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

*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.

Did you ever figure out that humans can't twist their torsos all the way around? Your analogy is invalid.

[CCC Dober]

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

...
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?

Excuse me, but you took offense when none was intended. As for your 'facts', well, I have presented mine before and on topic as well. They run contrary to what you have posted plus I have the experience to back it up. I read your 'claims' and they simply don't hold water. As such, I will not pass judgement, maintain my position and will not participate in a discussion that runs on the same level as a kindergarden fight. Thanks for trying anyway.

[Thomas Hogarth]

eZZip, on 13 June 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Did you ever figure out that humans can't twist their torsos all the way around? Your analogy is invalid.

Sort of. He's attempting to attack the previous claim that 360 twist allows a 'Mech to run away as easily as backing up and shooting with a 'Mech, and does not suffer as many downsides. It appears that he's using attempting to use a real-world example to prove that backing up and shooting is more difficult than moving forward and shooting.

At least, that's how it reads to me. As an aside, I'm going to the range today, and I might just have to try this out.

[TKG]

Aleksander Storm, on 13 June 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

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.

No it did not look at the design:
http://www.sarna.net...:Bushwacker.jpg

No actual hip module = no torso twist...theres nothing for the torso to pivot on,theres a number of mechs with this design aspect. I suspect the key detail as to why mechs like this keep appearing is the old murphy's law 'Always remember your weapons are made by the lowest bidder.' As for battle mechs if they dont have to make complex hands articulated arms and fully functioning waists...the producers to cut costs simply won't unless the bid requires it, prime example is the Anubis. In the TRO it's noted the makers cheaped out on the arm modules thus they look alike but only one has actual weapons in it.

[Teralitha]

eZZip, on 13 June 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Did you ever figure out that humans can't twist their torsos all the way around? Your analogy is invalid.

And yet.. machines can. Big machines. Battlemechs even.....

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 09:08 AM.

[eZZip]

CCC Dober, on 13 June 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

Excuse me, but you took offense when none was intended. As for your 'facts', well, I have presented mine before and on topic as well. They run contrary to what you have posted plus I have the experience to back it up. I read your 'claims' and they simply don't hold water. As such, I will not pass judgement, maintain my position and will not participate in a discussion that runs on the same level as a kindergarden fight. Thanks for trying anyway.

You haven't said anything except what I had quoted, and you haven't presented a single argument against anybody here except "lol you're wrong i'm right go away noob i have xp."

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

And yet.. machines can. Big machines. Battlemechs even.....

Because a mech is a tank? (No.) Well, canon never let them turn all the way around (except maybe a few rare exceptions), so I don't know why you say that they can. And if you say, "screw canon!", then there are about a thousand other things that could be argued for in exactly the same fashion.

Edited by eZZip, 13 June 2012 - 09:11 AM.

[gamesguy]

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

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

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.

[PUNK3L]

I prefer to use a joystick with twist yaw while playing MW, with my joystick's left and right locks coinciding with my 'mechs left and right locks. If you made the 360 more like 180 left and 180 right, I could like it, but I think it's a little unfair in anything but the lightest of light 'mechs.

[Aleksander Storm]

TKG, on 13 June 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

No it did not look at the design:
http://www.sarna.net...:Bushwacker.jpg

No actual hip module = no torso twist...theres nothing for the torso to pivot on,theres a number of mechs with this design aspect. I suspect the key detail as to why mechs like this keep appearing is the old murphy's law 'Always remember your weapons are made by the lowest bidder.' As for battle mechs if they dont have to make complex hands articulated arms and fully functioning waists...the producers to cut costs simply won't unless the bid requires it, prime example is the Anubis. In the TRO it's noted the makers cheaped out on the arm modules thus they look alike but only one has actual weapons in it.

My point was that, in MechWarrior 3, where they *SHOCK* changed the design of 'Mechs! ... the Bushwacker had a hip-joint pivot platform. I think that was the frame of reference of the post I was responding to....

EDIT:
Ooh! Ooh! Also! The cover of the very TRO it is introduced in shows a radically different design for the torso!

http://www.sarna.net...cker_battle.jpg

Shock! Contradictory TRO imagery in the same book!

Edited by Aleksander Storm, 13 June 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[Teralitha]

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

You haven't said anything except what I had quoted, and you haven't presented a single argument against anybody here except "lol you're wrong i'm right go away noob i have xp."

CCC Dober, you see what I have been having to deal with..... You present rock solid points and arguments, and they say... you dont present any arguement. Blind ignorance is running rampant in this topic....

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.

We know it would explain yours....



Pro 360, better than canon!!

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 09:24 AM.

[BlindProphet]

Teralitha, on 13 June 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

CCC Dober, you see what I have been having to deal with..... You present rock solid points and arguments, and they say... you dont present any arguement. Blind ignorance is running rampant in this topic....

Says the guy who says I'm a hardcore TT person because I think those rules should be taken into account as well as the fact I don't like 360 torso twist.... I'm not a hardcore TT person. I enjoy it for the most part, but I'm hardly a hardcore fanatic regarding the TT.

[Aleksander Storm]

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

CCC Dober, you see what I have been having to deal with..... You present rock solid points and arguments, and they say... you dont present any arguement. Blind ignorance is running rampant in this topic....

It's not that they say you don't present any argument... it's that you present paper-thin strawman arguments you claim to be rock solid points due to your entitlement.

You still haven't properly countered my statement about 360° being easier, and that I know THIS from 'experience', just as you claim. Since this is your 'rock-solid point', it must be 'rock-solid' for me, too. I'm not some religious fanatic- I'm a rational human who is willing to accept 360° on a select few 'Mechs if the devs deem it. But if it was up to me, after all I've seen from this whole 'debate', I'd rather we not have it.

Edited by Aleksander Storm, 13 June 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[Fides]

I remember the 180 degree twist was quite sufficient when playing MW4, as you can do 180 on each side, going full 360 would defeat the object of having the torso twist and may mess up the re-alignment of the chassis when walking.

Yes I know it is the torso and not the chassis for the twist and I know we can set it to walk while moving the torso to fire, but my issue is with the alignment, I used to have problems in some of the MW4 games with the twist not coming back into complete alignment with the result that when I am walking again it would take several shifts to get it back in alignment.

Can't remember whether mercenaries improved on this and it snapped back into alignment when joystick was released.

Without playing the game first I would worry that it won't re-align properly and could result in confusion as to which part left or right of the twist you are in, cause when you urgently need to change direction you want to be able to twist back to center, right?

Also hope there is a hotkey to reset the alignment to center?

[Jukebox1986]

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

Blind ignorance is running rampant in this topic....

yes, it is. If you would look at the vote. Point 1+2 and point 3 are nearly equal. so the guys who dont care about TT and dont want 360° are equal to the people who want 360°.

And in addition to that, there are the TT´ers. (point 4)

Ignorance is not a one way road...

[TKG]

Aleksander Storm, on 13 June 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

My point was that, in MechWarrior 3, where they *SHOCK* changed the design of 'Mechs! ... the Bushwacker had a hip-joint pivot platform. I think that was the frame of reference of the post I was responding to....

EDIT:
Ooh! Ooh! Also! The cover of the very TRO it is introduced in shows a radically different design for the torso!
http://www.sarna.net...cker_battle.jpg
Shock! Contradictory TRO imagery in the same book!

Ok Fair enough, I'd forgotten about that cover, But, since when has battletech coverart NOT been dramatic or for that matter cared for absolute accuracy?

Plus I found this:
http://www.mechwarri.../mech_bush.html

Seems my memory is off, MW3 went with the cover art not the actual TRO art.

[Teralitha]

Aleksander Storm, on 13 June 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

It's not that they say you don't present any argument... it's that you present paper-thin strawman arguments you claim to be rock solid points due to your entitlement.

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

[CCC Dober]

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

You haven't said anything except what I had quoted, and you haven't presented a single argument against anybody here except "lol you're wrong i'm right go away noob i have xp."
...

I don't even need to make a point, you just do it for me. Feel free to read up in the related thread but spare me your accusations.

Here are a few facts:

1. Not all Mechs have the ability to twist 360°, just a couple (some notable MW4 Mechs: Raven, Rifleman, Vulture, Thor, Canis, Blood Asp)
2. Most of them have the physical ability and where no parts are colliding with each other in the process
3. They are balanced by/through the following factors or any combination: twist speed, weapons loadout, weapons distribution
4. Slow twist speeds will not allow fast target acquisition and hamper reaction times and capability to deal with multiple threats

There you have it. Disagree or not, but this is basic knowledge and if you experience that in MW4, you will quickly see the advantages and disadvantages of the concept. And if you want to drag canon out for a strawman, be my guest and explain away how the Rifleman or the MadCat are supposed to flip their arms around and fire backwards without complicating the targetting procedure any further. I don't think you can, much less give a good solution and that's why 360 is here to stay.

Edited by CCC Dober, 13 June 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[Aleksander Storm]

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.

You still haven't properly countered my statement about 360° being easier, and that I know THIS from 'experience', just as you claim. Since this is your 'rock-solid point', it must be 'rock-solid' for me, too. I'm not some religious fanatic- I'm a rational human who is willing to accept 360° on a select few 'Mechs if the devs deem it. But if it was up to me, after all I've seen from this whole 'debate', I'd rather we not have it.

[Teralitha]

Fides, on 13 June 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

I remember the 180 degree twist was quite sufficient when playing MW4, as you can do 180 on each side, going full 360 would defeat the object of having the torso twist and may mess up the re-alignment of the chassis when walking.

Yes I know it is the torso and not the chassis for the twist and I know we can set it to walk while moving the torso to fire, but my issue is with the alignment, I used to have problems in some of the MW4 games with the twist not coming back into complete alignment with the result that when I am walking again it would take several shifts to get it back in alignment.

Can't remember whether mercenaries improved on this and it snapped back into alignment when joystick was released.

Without playing the game first I would worry that it won't re-align properly and could result in confusion as to which part left or right of the twist you are in, cause when you urgently need to change direction you want to be able to twist back to center, right?

Also hope there is a hotkey to reset the alignment to center?

Not sure about other past mw games, but MW4 had an auto centering feature by default, but really, this feature actually inpaired your piloting, which is why I always turned it off.

[Teralitha]

CCC Dober, on 13 June 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

I don't even need to make a point, you just do it for me. Feel free to read up in the related thread but spare me your accusations.

Here are a few facts:

1. Not all Mechs have the ability to twist 360°, just a couple (some notable MW4 Mechs: Raven, Rifleman, Thor, Canis, Blood Asp)
2. Most of them have the physical ability and where no parts are colliding with each other in the process
3. They are balanced by/through the following factors or any combination: twist speed, weapons loadout, weapons distribution
4. Slow twist speeds will not allow fast target acquisition and hamper reaction times and capability to deal with multiple threats

There you have it. Disagree or not, but this is basic knowledge and if you experience that in MW4, you will quickly see the advantages and disadvantages of the concept. And if you want to drag canon out for a strawman, be my guest and explain away how the Rifleman or the MadCat are supposed to flip their arms around and fire backwards without complicating the targetting procedure any further. I don't think you can, much less give a good solution and that's why 360 is here to stay.

Just watch... someone is about to tell you that you didnt present anything and that your arguments are paper thin... It just keep goes round and round... 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!"

Edited by Teralitha, 13 June 2012 - 09:46 AM.