271 replies to this topic

[Sesambrot]

Buhu Canon, blah blah Tabletop, derp derp it's not in the books!!!

this topic in a nutshell!

May I point out that this poll isn't representative at all! I mean come on, about 300 out of over 100,000 registered members have voted...
It's absolutely meaningless! As is the feature by the way!

This isn't TT, some things are going to be different, maybe there are a few mechs with 360° maybe there are not, in a few months we'll know for sure, but which ever way it turns out to be, we'll have to deal with it! If those "but-it's-not-canon"-guys are too narrowminded to enjoy the game with this feature, well then that's too bad for you, please excuse me while I'm having a blast blowing **** up!
The game wouldn't lose anything if this feature was added, all It might do is add a bit of variety, as Teralitha pointed out multiple times, nothing wrong with that in my book...

All that said, I seriously wonder why noone has coplained about the Jenners legs not being mounted to it's torso!
Well, sure it's a crappy design, but it's canon, duh!

BFalcon, on 14 June 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

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.

Dude, you're completely missing the point... ...again...
I wasn't arguing whether it made sense in BT or not, what I'm saying is that people seem to forget the examples right in front of them, claiming that a 360° torso twist couldn't be realized.
Oh, and I appologize for not seeing your degree in mech-construction earlier!
I didn't know that you knew how exactly a mech looks like internally...
... but who would know?
the only pics I could find, don't show any myomers at all... If you want to harden them in order to absorb a shock of some sort, then that's nothing an hydraulicsystem couldn't do as well...
Again, I'm not trying to argue what makes more sense in a battlemech, but I'm upset about the amount of ignorance displayed.
Myomers wouldn't be better than an hydraulic system because they can do so much more! Contract and relax is pretty much all the can, and all that can be controlled about that is the force they apply, nothing an hydraulic system couldn't do! in that regard hydraulics even have an advantage because you can build hydraulic motors that can rotate freely, something even an artificial muscle wouldn't be capable of!
The advantage Myomers (IRL called EAP for electroactive polymere) have over hydrolics is, the way better response time. Due to the lack of a fluid, and the necessity of a pump and pipes, solely relying on electricity they may need a little less space and can actually be controled more directly and more quickly. This is the one big advantage, and the one that actually makes them interessting for applications in robotics and prosthetics...

Edited by Sesambrot, 14 June 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[Hawkeye 72]

Hi there all!

My this has been an enjoyable read! I love when a good flame war starts!

Since this will be locked rather soon, as CoC violations litter the thread like pigeons in New York, I think I have a solution that will help you all

Solution to 360 Torso Twist Debate.

I hope that helps settle a few things here.

If not, I present this GIF as compensation, because I feel it accurately describes how this thread has gone!



Good day to all!

Edited by Hawkeye 72, 14 June 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[BlindProphet]

Sesambrot, on 14 June 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Buhu Canon, blah blah Tabletop, derp derp it's not in the books!!!

this topic in a nutshell!

May I point out that this poll isn't representative at all! I mean come on, about 300 out of over 100,000 registered members have voted...
It's absolutely meaningless! As is the feature by the way!

This isn't TT, some things are going to be different, maybe there are a few mechs with 360° maybe there are not, in a few months we'll know for sure, but which ever way it turns out to be, we'll have to deal with it! If those "but-it's-not-canon"-guys are too narrowminded to enjoy the game with this feature, well then that's too bad for you, please excuse me while I'm having a blast blowing **** up!
The game wouldn't lose anything if this feature was added, all It might do is add a bit of variety, as Teralitha pointed out multiple times, nothing wrong with that in my book...

All that said, I seriously wonder why noone has coplained about the Jenners legs not being mounted to it's torso!
Well, sure it's a crappy design, but it's canon, duh!

Just as Teralitha is too narrow minded to enjoy the game without the feature?I'll enjoy the game one way or another. But that doesn't mean I want it in the game. The game won't necessarily loose anything outside of part of its connection to the table top, but it won't necessarily add anything either.

[BFalcon]

Sesambrot, on 14 June 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Dude, you're completely missing the point... ...again...
I wasn't arguing whether it made sense in BT or not, what I'm saying is that people seem to forget the examples right in front of them, claiming that a 360° torso twist couldn't be realized.
Oh, and I appologize for not seeing your degree in mech-construction earlier!
I didn't know that you knew how exactly a mech looks like internally...
... but who would know?
the only pics I could find, don't show any myomers at all... If you want to harden them in order to absorb a shock of some sort, then that's nothing an hydraulicsystem couldn't do as well...

I do question if they could do that at the highly variable temperatures that a battlemech both creates and has to operate with though. I'm going on the canon books - I don't recall seeing any reference to hydraulic fluids being sprayed when damaged, just myomers snapping or being cut.

I would appreciate less sarcasm and vitriol though... I have been trying to discuss sensibly - such aggression is completely unnecessary.

[Roland]

The reality is that neither the addition of 360 torso twist to limited mechs, nor the lack thereof, will have a significant impact on the overall game.

It's simply not worth getting as worked up over as you guys apparently are.

[BFalcon]

blindprophet, on 14 June 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

[/i]

Just as Teralitha is too narrow minded to enjoy the game without the feature?I'll enjoy the game one way or another. But that doesn't mean I want it in the game. The game won't necessarily loose anything outside of part of its connection to the table top, but it won't necessarily add anything either.

Well, I was hoping to be able to go for the Light or Medium mechs without some heavy or assault just torso-twisting ad infinitum and taking my mech apart (possibly using the mech turning to help it keep me in its sights). If the 360 does come in, I'll probably end up not spending money on the game and moving on before long, despite Battletech having a special place in my heart. I want to see teamwork come into play - for example, if that Assault's Lancemate nobbled my leg as I was maneuvering the Assault, hence letting the assault get a good shot, then I'd be happy (well, you know what I mean) with that. Such a situation is very much a case of "having the tiger by the tail" anyhow, without having such a beast tracking all angles without problems.

[Steel Talon]

blindprophet, on 14 June 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

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.

As u said its scout, so whats problem with 360 it wont be OP with that low dps
U fear it? Battlefield is not place for cowards!

Urbanmech is light with 34km/h speed so it wont be problem too

Quote

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

May not every, but most do, torso twist range included

[Sesambrot]

blindprophet, on 14 June 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

[/i]
Just as Teralitha is too narrow minded to enjoy the game without the feature?I'll enjoy the game one way or another. But that doesn't mean I want it in the game. The game won't necessarily loose anything outside of part of its connection to the table top, but it won't necessarily add anything either.

Being an FPS, there are going to be a lot of points, in which this game will differ from the TT...
Torso twist range actually being a minor one.

BFalcon, on 14 June 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

I do question if they could do that at the highly variable temperatures that a battlemech both creates and has to operate with though. I'm going on the canon books - I don't recall seeing any reference to hydraulic fluids being sprayed when damaged, just myomers snapping or being cut.

I would appreciate less sarcasm and vitriol though... I have been trying to discuss sensibly - such aggression is completely unnecessary.

Okay, maybe the part about the mech-construction-degree was unnecessary, sorry!

However, I'm pointing this out for the third time now...!
I am not trying to argue about the way mechs work, or should work, merely about the possibility of creating a joint that allows for 360° torso rotation, of which some people in here claim it was technically impossible, which is simply wrong! On top of that, I was trying to show, that myomers are not the all-magical, all-powerfull tools you implied.

Besides, what bothered me about your previous post is that it's mostly based on assumptions which you are trying to sell as facts. At least that's what it looks like.
On a sidenote, that's the way politicians usually talk, and that just ****** me off... sorry for kinda overreacting...

[BlindProphet]

Steel Talon, on 14 June 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

As u said its scout, so whats problem with 360 it wont be OP with that low dps
U fear it? Battlefield is not place for cowards!

Urbanmech is light with 34km/h speed so it wont be problem too

I never said it would make it OP. Do not put words in my mouth. I don't fear it. I just don't want it. Its as simple as that.

Its a scout. It shouldn't need to have the torso twist to attack while it runs. Its still a quite capable mech without it.

The urbanmech works quite well already in the environment it was designed for, urban terrain.

Edited by blindprophet, 14 June 2012 - 01:11 PM.

[Max Liao]

Sesambrot, on 14 June 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Being an FPS, there are going to be a lot of points, in which this game will differ from the TT...
Torso twist range actually being a minor one.

Well, herein lies the problem. Is it a traditional FPS or is it a simulation?

If it's an FPS, then I can go back to playing TF2 or BF3 ... or BF2142, they have mechs. If it's an FPS, then it'll be more Shogo and less BT/MW. That, to me, is a bad thing.

If it's a simulation, then they will make every effort to capture the feel of piloting a BattleMech as described in the TT game rules and the novels to the best of their ability.

[Roland]

It's neither a simulation nor a shooter. It's a slower paced, tactical shooter, with simmy elements.

But it's not gonna be like steel battalion or some of the high end flight sims, where you are actually simulating the details of flipping switches and junk in the cockpit.

I mean, hell, the gameplay videos pretty much show how it's gonna play, unless they secretly totally changed everything.

[BFalcon]

Steel Talon, on 14 June 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

As u said its scout, so whats problem with 360 it wont be OP with that low dps
U fear it? Battlefield is not place for cowards!

You bet - UM-R60L - packs an AC/20... so yeah, if I was in a light, I'd fear the thing... one hit would probably strip the armour and a good chunk of inner structure in one hit. A commando, for example, is only 5 tons lighter, so a probable opponent and has only 6 armour and 4 IS on the central torso... one good hit could kill it in one shot...

So tell me again... how is the UM underpowered?

All the UM designs (at this timeline - there is a 3062 design that carries an AC5, but it's heavily armoured) carry large (10 or higher) autocannon - something you rarely see on any mech of its tonnage. The UM is a tradeoff - firepower vs speed.

[Sesambrot]

Max Liao, on 14 June 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Well, herein lies the problem. Is it a traditional FPS or is it a simulation?

If it's an FPS, then I can go back to playing TF2 or BF3 ... or BF2142, they have mechs. If it's an FPS, then it'll be more Shogo and less BT/MW. That, to me, is a bad thing.

If it's a simulation, then they will make every effort to capture the feel of piloting a BattleMech as described in the TT game rules and the novels to the best of their ability.

well, call it whatever you want, the fact that you're actually inside the mech, controlling it, rather than rolling some dice to determine what it does, is the first, most obvious, and most important difference. Then there is firerate which actually comes as natural as breathing to any first person game with "firearms", but isn't really layed out in TT.
just to point into the direction I was going with that statement...

[BFalcon]

Sesambrot, on 14 June 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Okay, maybe the part about the mech-construction-degree was unnecessary, sorry!

However, I'm pointing this out for the third time now...!
I am not trying to argue about the way mechs work, or should work, merely about the possibility of creating a joint that allows for 360° torso rotation, of which some people in here claim it was technically impossible, which is simply wrong! On top of that, I was trying to show, that myomers are not the all-magical, all-powerfull tools you implied.

Besides, what bothered me about your previous post is that it's mostly based on assumptions which you are trying to sell as facts. At least that's what it looks like.
On a sidenote, that's the way politicians usually talk, and that just ****** me off... sorry for kinda overreacting...

No worries - I'm just going on what I've read in the sourcebooks and novels, so sorry if it comes across as a bit preachy.

And sorry... the OP's been arguing the point so much I've got a little target fixated.

And FPS vs Sim? I hope it'll be a sim - not to the FSX degree, but I want as many controls as possible so that I can maximise my potential as a mechwarrior. I want to BE the pilot in that 30m high beast of metal and fibres... that's my perspective, anyhow.

Anyone who wants an FPS, fine - ask them to introduce infantry to the game - I'm sure you'll enjoy yourselves... (be sure to ask for Infernos though).

I do agree that they should limit the controls to those directly related to the game - I don't want to have to speak the code phrase each time I get into the mech and sit here wearing very little aside from a coolant vest and neurohelmet though...

[BlindProphet]

Sesambrot, on 14 June 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

well, call it whatever you want, the fact that you're actually inside the mech, controlling it, rather than rolling some dice to determine what it does, is the first, most obvious, and most important difference. Then there is firerate which actually comes as natural as breathing to any first person game with "firearms", but isn't really layed out in TT.
just to point into the direction I was going with that statement...

The direction your pointing is to ignore everything from the table top and make a whole new game not bound by anything there...That is the direction your arguments points

You know they did that with another game Shadowrun for the 360 and PC.

That game tanked despite the fact the mechanics of the game itself were quite enjoyable...It was a well paced, mechanically solid shooter, which ignored all the lore, and rules of the of Shadowrun and such.

[BFalcon]

blindprophet, on 14 June 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

The direction your pointing is to ignore everything from the table top and make a whole new game not bound by anything there...That is the direction your arguments points

You know they did that with another game Shadowrun for the 360 and PC.

That game tanked despite the fact the mechanics of the game itself were quite enjoyable...It was a well paced, mechanically solid shooter, which ignored all the lore, and rules of the of Shadowrun and such.

Ugh... that game was really sad to see - a good example of how NOT to do it.

If you want your franchise to do well, keep it well clear of Microsoft... at least that's how it seems sometimes (I don't mean don't make it for the 360 or Windows, just don't let MS near the production process).

[Chunkymonkey]

Nope

[Dragorath]

For Rifleman it would make sense, but hardly any other Mechs are coming to my mind.

And 360° rotation doesn't imply automatically that you can turn infinite times, maybe just once or 1,5 fold and then you have to turn back.

Edited by Dragorath, 14 June 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[Rick Morgens]

I didn't really intend to comment on this, or vote... But the words of the OP make it hard to avoid choosing a side. Not a big fan of ad hominem attacks, especially when they are as blatant as the OP's. Personally, I don't really want to see 360 except on a few 'mechs (Well, only one. The urbie.) It detracts from the feel and the sexiness of 'mech combat when I see a turretmech doing a 720° (Excluding the adorable urbanmech).

Edited by Rick Morgens, 14 June 2012 - 01:55 PM.

[Menkare]

I am against it for the simple reason that it would almost be a mechanical impossiblity to implement.