271 replies to this topic

[Jukebox1986]

blindprophet, on 14 June 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

I still have absolutely no clue what you're complaining about, or really what you're saying at all. I see english is not your first language...but I do not understand anything you're saying.

BFalcon, on 14 June 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

?
Hardly insulting - especially the way the OP's been talking to people here and in the other thread.
He's precisely right - the majority of the people want nothing to do with it... what's insulting about that?

SMDMadCow, on 14 June 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

No, he's drawing a conclusion based off the current numbers shown in the poll. Currently, the number of people who have voted no are more than 2 times the people who have voted yes. Is that not most of or the majority?

Its true, my english is lacking practice. Im trying anyway:
Maybe people dont think like he do. the polls pretty indisputable but thats not the same as "nobody wants to have something to do with him". and thats all!
thats not drawing a conclusion, you cant compare the poll to this statement. The poll says nothing about liking OP or not, or am i wrong?

[BFalcon]

Sesambrot, on 14 June 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

The whole balance discussions aside, could people please refrain from trying to argue that there would be technical difficulties with creating such a joint?!
You must live behind the moon, have you never heard of cranes, excavators, or maybe.... gee. I dunno..... TANKS?
You know those big metal boxes, very heavy driving around on treads, with a turret and a big ***-gun?
Clearly they must be using black magic to make that work! -.-

As for "sloppy" hydraulics....... yeah, right.... you clearly have no idea what you're talking about! It's not like it's being used in tanks, no...
And even if they were sloppy, a ten year old computer would probably be more than enough to do the basic calculations needed to for compensate that!
Hell, we build instable fighterjets today which would fall right out of the sky, if not for a computer adjusting ruderangles a thousand times per second....
... and you guys wanna tell me that we couldn't build a hydraulic system with the required accuracy for a mech's torso twist??? Uhuh.....

Erm... go look up the previous thread and then come back, OK?

Basically, as I said down there, the torsional difference between a low tank turret and a 10-20 metre high Battlemech torso is a lot different, especially since you don't generally expect a tank turret to have to keep working after the tank's fallen onto its side, or for the tank to land on it, such as a mech would its torso. Any why would you use hydraulics when, for not much loss in tactical ability (the IS fight as a LANCE, not individuals, so you cover your wingman's rear arc), you can use lighter and stronger myomer bundles... just saying.

And please don't down the language - I am NOT an *****... thanks.

[SMDMadCow]

Janus Wealth, on 14 June 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Its true, my english is lacking practice. Im trying anyway:
Maybe people dont think like he do. the polls pretty indisputable but thats not the same as "nobody wants to have something to do with him". and thats all!
thats not drawing a conclusion, you cant compare the poll to this statement. The poll says nothing about liking OP or not, or am i wrong?

Ah, i think i see where the disconnect is.
"The majority of people want nothing to do with it" IT is in refference to the idea of 360 torso twist, not the OP.

[DerMaulwurf]

Real tanks also have a weapon range of more than a few hundred metres.

This particular fictional universe just happens to drown realistic technology under an avalanche of mechs.

On topic:
I am a fan of the TT, but I oppose 360° twisting because I don't think it's good for gameplay.

[Jukebox1986]

SMDMadCow, on 14 June 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

Ah, i think i see where the disconnect is.
"The majority of people want nothing to do with it" IT is in refference to the idea of 360 torso twist, not the OP.

*read it again* *slams head on wall...*
shame on me. in germany we say: Wer lesen kann ist klar im Vorteil. (he, who can read, has the advantage)
Im sorry that my misunderstanding caused such commotion. Especially sorry to you blindprophet...

Edited by Janus Wealth, 14 June 2012 - 08:10 AM.

[BFalcon]

Janus Wealth, on 14 June 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

*read it again* *slams head on wall...*
shame on me. in germany we say: Wer lesen kann ist klar im Vorteil. (he, who can read, has the advatage)
Im sorry that my misunderstanding caused such commotion. Especially sorry to you blindprophet...

Good catch Madcow...

Props, Janus, for apologising...

DerMaulwurf, on 14 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Real tanks also have a weapon range of more than a few hundred metres.

This particular fictional universe just happens to drown realistic technology under an avalanche of mechs.

Maybe they just didn't bother to keep developing tank weapons given that they died too quickly with mechs around? I dunno...

[Sesambrot]

BFalcon, on 14 June 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

Erm... go look up the previous thread and then come back, OK?

Basically, as I said down there, the torsional difference between a low tank turret and a 10-20 metre high Battlemech torso is a lot different, especially since you don't generally expect a tank turret to have to keep working after the tank's fallen onto its side, or for the tank to land on it, such as a mech would its torso. Any why would you use hydraulics when, for not much loss in tactical ability (the IS fight as a LANCE, not individuals, so you cover your wingman's rear arc), you can use lighter and stronger myomer bundles... just saying.

And please don't down the language - I am NOT an *****... thanks.

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?

DerMaulwurf, on 14 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

This particular fictional universe just happens to drown realistic technology under an avalanche of mechs.

They still have walking tanks, and go to space, and actually developped myomers for said walking tanks, and you're implying they couldn't produce a hydraulic actuator that was suited to carry a mech's torso? I find that hard to believe.


Again, I hardly care for the balancediscussion, I think whatever they do will be properly balanced, but what bothers me is, that people are implying that a 360° torso twist would not be possible in the first place...

Edited by Sesambrot, 14 June 2012 - 08:19 AM.

[Teralitha]

Doxy, on 14 June 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

That sounds like a good argument for a single player game but not an MMO. Everything has to be balanced or you'll see million people all playing that single "not equal" mech.

Oh you mean like how (pre mektek) everyone piloted daishies in mw4? NOT. When you joined a pub server in MW4 you saw people driving all kinds of mechs.. No one mech was used the "most" There were the popular mechs, but their popularity mostly stemmed from "looks" I guess their appearance was overpowered....


I guess my point is... either MW4 is the better game, or there wont any issue in MWO that you seem to think will exist.

Edited by Teralitha, 14 June 2012 - 08:21 AM.

[Mech79]

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

No just like a crane in real life electrical and hydraulics would be routed through rotating cylinders just like a motor that use brushes to keep contact.

[Dread Render]

TT rules are fine but either way, no 360... no way.
That would take out almost all the skill required to fight in a Mech.
It would not even be a Mech game anymore.

[Teralitha]

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?




They still have walking tanks, and go to space, and actually developped myomers for said walking tanks, and you're implying they couldn't produce a hydraulic actuator that was suited to carry a mech's torso? I find that hard to believe.


Again, I hardly care for the balancediscussion, I think whatever they do will be properly balanced, but what bothers me is, that people are implying that a 360° torso twist would not be possible in the first place...

You just gave me an idea... Let the joint between the torso and the legs be a hitbox... and if it gets destroyed.... your mech cant torso twist. Hows that for realism... (NO1111 it not rulebook!!) So funny.

[Teralitha]

Currently the Poll results are...

85 votes for 360
172 against
32 others.

85 to 172 is still a significant amount. In fact this number is more representative of how many will be actually using a 360 mech if they are put in. I believe the % of use was much less in MW4.

If 360 was indeed in the game, on a TINY number of chassis, then who of the against voters, would actually... Not play the game because of it?

Ill be honest.... the less flavor and diversity this game has, will determine how long that "I" play it. The more dumbed down the game is, the sooner I will lose interest in playing it... and I am a fickle player. But even in my fickleness I played MW4 for years.(what does that tell you) Where some newer and more popular games didnt hold my interest for more than a couple weeks/months... You see where Im going with this? I represent 33% of the players in this poll who like more diversity in a game to keep ourselves interested. What good will it do if 33% of all the players who signed up quit playing after a month or two because of the game growing stale...



Support 360 ... and diversity!!

Edited by Teralitha, 14 June 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[Teralitha]

All things diverse, even in small doses are good for the game.

[SMDMadCow]

Diversity and 360 torso twist are not mutually exclusive.

[DerMaulwurf]

Teralitha, on 14 June 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Currently the Poll results are...

85 votes for 360
172 against
32 others.

85 to 172 is still a significant amount. In fact this number is more representative of how many will be actually using a 360 mech if they are put in. I believe the % of use was much less in MW4.

If 360 was indeed in the game, on a TINY number of chassis, then who of the against voters, would actually... Not play the game because of it?

Ill be honest.... the less flavor and diversity this game has, will determine how long that "I" play it. The more dumbed down the game is, the sooner I will lose interest in playing it... and I am a fickle player. But even in my fickleness I played MW4 for years.(what does that tell you) Where some newer and more popular games didnt hold my interest for more than a couple weeks/months... You see where Im going with this? I represent 33% of the players in this poll who like more diversity in a game to keep ourselves interested. What good will it do if 33% of all the players who signed up quit playing after a month or two because of the game growing stale...



Support 360 ... and diversity!!

Seriously, why do you post ask a poll if you ignore the results anyway?

Edited by DerMaulwurf, 14 June 2012 - 09:00 AM.

[Teralitha]

DerMaulwurf, on 14 June 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Seriously, why do you post ask a poll if you ignore the results anyway?

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

And yes, 360 adds diversity. Even some naysayers have agreed with that.

[Thomas Hogarth]

as stated previously, loss of immersion for any reason can also lead to premature loss of interest. 360 is one of those things that, for varied reasons, leads to loss of immersion.

which is why i and others stopped playing mw4.

People like to talk about how long multiplayer lasted in MW4 and use that as a selling point for it's features. The reality is that the number of online players compared to the number of people that purchased the game was quite pathetic. If MWO saw the kind of numbers that MW4 servers have, even post mektek, PGI would be insolvent in short order.

This poll highlights one of the potential reasons more people didn't play MW4 multiplayer, and why PGI might be looking to cater more towards them.

Sorry.

[Teralitha]

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.

Edited by Teralitha, 14 June 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[Teralitha]

Thomas Hogarth, on 14 June 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

as stated previously, loss of immersion for any reason can also lead to premature loss of interest. 360 is one of those things that, for varied reasons, leads to loss of immersion.

which is why i and others stopped playing mw4.

People like to talk about how long multiplayer lasted in MW4 and use that as a selling point for it's features. The reality is that the number of online players compared to the number of people that purchased the game was quite pathetic. If MWO saw the kind of numbers that MW4 servers have, even post mektek, PGI would be insolvent in short order.

This poll highlights one of the potential reasons more people didn't play MW4 multiplayer, and why PGI might be looking to cater more towards them.

Sorry.

Sorry, but TT Immersion is not the factor that keeps someone interested in playing a "video" game for years. That is diversity, and 360 adds to that. Your trying to compare immersion in TT, to immersion in a video game. Its doesnt translate, at all. The video game, is by far. nothing like the TT in the way one becomes "immersed"

Edited by Teralitha, 14 June 2012 - 09:15 AM.

[BlindProphet]

Teralitha, on 14 June 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Currently the Poll results are...

85 votes for 360
172 against
32 others.

85 to 172 is still a significant amount. In fact this number is more representative of how many will be actually using a 360 mech if they are put in. I believe the % of use was much less in MW4.

That is a horrible conclusion to draw from the poll numbers. Just because someone wants it in does not mean they will play such a mech. Nor does the fact someone not doesn't want this feature mean that they won't play said mechs. The fact that you make this conclusion shows your lack of intellectual honesty in that you're using numbers that do not support your claim to support your claim.

Quote

If 360 was indeed in the game, on a TINY number of chassis, then who of the against voters, would actually... Not play the game because of it?

I'll still play personally. But I've yet to see a well reasoned argument of why it should be in the game.

Quote

Ill be honest.... the less flavor and diversity this game has, will determine how long that "I" play it. The more dumbed down the game is, the sooner I will lose interest in playing it... and I am a fickle player. But even in my fickleness I played MW4 for years.(what does that tell you) Where some newer and more popular games didnt hold my interest for more than a couple weeks/months... You see where Im going with this? I represent 33% of the players in this poll who like more diversity in a game to keep ourselves interested. What good will it do if 33% of all the players who signed up quit playing after a month or two because of the game growing stale...

Support 360 ... and diversity!!

First, I feel sorry for the players you claim to represent. Second you can't draw the conclusion that people want the same thing as you for the same reasons as you based on this poll. Nor can you assume that they would leave the game like you, for the same reasons as you will. Just more intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Second, it isn't that big of a increase in diversity. If without it there is not enough diversity, you will find it will take you only slightly longer to become disinterested with it in as the supposed increase in diversity is not that large.

Teralitha, on 14 June 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

All things diverse, even in small doses are good for the game.

Patently false. Having 30,000 different currencies you have to manage would be something thats diverse, however it would not be good for the game.

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

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

And yes, 360 adds diversity. Even some naysayers have agreed with that.

The 'diversity' it adds is negligible. You're the one ignoring the results that the majority people do not want 360 twist, and trying to make the numbers say things that they simply don't.