55 replies to this topic

[Tweaks]

J Echo, on 15 November 2011 - 05:25 PM, said:

Combat lasers do exist in our real world--they just suck royally at present. But so did the aeroplane when it was first used as a weapon. Generally speaking, most of the technology to make a crude working battlemech is present today--it just needs massive refinement and some materials we don't have. (And a reason to do it, which as discussed won't ever happen. Powered exoskeletons, on the other hand--that's already happening, evidently.)

Even if they do, it's besides the point. The point is, it's not the same combat lasers that exist in the BattleTech universe, so you can't use that as a reference for reality!

Edited by Tweaks, 15 November 2011 - 05:30 PM.

[Eradikitten]

Hrrm, more contentious than I thought it would be. Alright starting from the top.

Quote

How in the Hell would you know what I want?

I wouldn't, because you aren't articulating your point well. What is it about tabletop that you don't want translated into the Sim? If you completely disregard the source material you might as well set the game in its own universe, much as ME is Bioware's own Star Wars universe.

What is it you dislike about the tabletop rules, specifically?

Quote

The tabletoppers talk about realism but they don't want realism. They want abstraction. That's what tabletop is. Abstraction instead of realism.

Hardly. There is a reason I asked if you've ever shot a gun IRL; people who actually shoot understand the degree of complexity that goes into a long range shot better than people that don't. Also people that hunt tend to understand the difference between target shooting and longrange marksmanship and, well, real world applications of firearms better than people that don't. Off the top of my head, and knowing I will miss some, the variables that impact long range marksmanship against static targets are: Temperature, wind (and differences between you and the target), environmental conditions (Snow, rain, fog), intervening obsticals, temperature of the barrel of the gun, stiffness of the barrel of the gun, fouling in the barrel, design of the bullet (Meplat, ballistic coefficient, weight), velocity of the bullet, and a whole bunch of internal ballistics that would confuse most people for me to point out. This is one of the reasons that VERY VERY few people are any good at marksmanship past ~500 yards, regardless of the quality of their equipment. All of this and MORE apply to the weapons in mechwarrior.

Quote

the sim ... not-crowd. We sim-types don't make up a big enough demographic to be described as a "crowd." That's why there's never been, and never will be, a reasonably realistic mech simulator game.

I'd count myself in the Sim crowd. After all, I'm a big fan of IL-2 and the X series of space sims. Hard to get more "hardcore sim" than those. I'd actually love for MWO to get to that level of emulation, but TBH it is far beyond the capabilities of the target audiences' computers.

Quote

The stories. I like playing the stories. The great MechWarriors who nail shot after shot, accurate as can be. Yes, the lasers spread, some shots are right on target, whereas others are quickly fired and the Warrior is happy if the shot even hits. I do not want to be joe shmow, who just fires shots, hoping they hit. I want to be deadly accurate

That's all well and good for singleplayer, but in multiplayer not everyone gets to be a unique and beautiful snowflake.

Quote

In other words, I want a 100% realistic simulation of what piloting a battlemech would be like if battlemechs existed in the real world. That means real physics--something that no Mechwarrior game has come close to and the tabletop is even farther from. Arbitrary made-up rules which defy physics does not increase realism

Err. . . My senior project for my EE degree involved laser arrays and the tweaks and focusing there of. At laserpointer energies you don't have to deal with bloom. At weaponized levels you do. Bloom is essentially the laser itself heating the atmosphere to the point that it changes the optical properties of the atmosphere between yourself and the target. IE the laser heats the air which causes it to bend the laser beam. There are two known techniques for overcoming bloom: First, shrink the duration of the laser pulse so that the atmosphere doesn't have time to warp the shot too badly. Second, use a continuous beam and make adjustments based on observation of the bending of the beam (Adaptive optics). The first is what fits best with the BT Canon, as well as what most RL weaponized lasers attempt. The point? Lasers are already randomized, and it is a chaotic interaction. It is not predictable. It doesn't really matter what you want to use to randomize, be it a RNG, a very very high level simulation, or a dice roll, the beam has divergence due to ACTUAL PHYSICS.

[Eradikitten]

Quote

But I also recognize that some of my fellow TTers, dont' know what modern computer hardware is capable of. It can do it all. And it will be awesome.

Do you really want a physics card to be a requirement for this game? Or a graphics card that does physics onboard? Given the need to simulate the above for every single shot it would quickly bring systems that don't have 'em to their knees. Also it is all well and good to talk about how quad-core chips, SIMD instruction layers, and fast ram and storage would allow simulation on the near realistic level for single objects, but doing so with a full company against another full company across the internet requires a dumbing down of the physics.

Quote

Right, but rather than scatter the shots, shake the hell out of the mech, like the space shuttle taking off. Make the hud go wonky, and the torso start to list. Then, while all that is going on, if I make my shot, I rock! If I don't well, whattya expect? Everything was shaking, I was listing to the left My reticule was flying all over the place, I did the best I could!

Then you end up with the problems of some of the previous MW games where someone could use a fast-firing but low damage gun like an AC2 or 5 to keep you shaken and inaccurate and helpless. Besides, lasers and PPCs don't have a physical mass to "shake" you, and many of the ballistic and missile weapons are far to weak to do so. Why invent a system to handle something that has already been addressed? Further, people seem to want to RP their mechs as if they were a soldier with a rifle, looking down a perpetually zeroed in scope. In truth the weapons are on various parts of the mech, they all weigh at least half a ton, some as many as 15 tons. That is a lot of mass and inertia to be targetting around aiming at a pinpoint.

Quote

But don't take the shot out of my hands and put it in the blender.

They were never in your hands to begin with.

Quote

I do NOT want dice rolls. I do NOT want random. I want simulation of the Battletech universe in first-person.

Given all the variables in a GOOD simulation, it IS random. Saying you don't want random is saying you don't want a strong simulation.

Quote

Tabletop has so much bad simulation that it should be thrown out in favor of more accurate methods. The main thing being dice rolls--a terrible simulation of any reality except for one which we completely don't understand (and physics is not one of those).

Not really true. You're just about as likely to predict direction bullet deflection with a D8 as a good ballistics program. The ballistics program is better about predicting magnitude, however.

Quote

but physics itself does not deny the possibility of yet-undiscovered elements and methodology for better leg systems.

Err. . . do some research on transuranics sometime. Your statement is sound if you replace "elements" with "alloys" or "materials" however.

Quote

There's loads of room for improvement. Like, scrap-it-all-and-start-over-with-real-physics kind of improvement.

But is it still mechwarrior if you scrap it all?

Quote

Anything based on dice rolls is no mech sim to speak of

Physics has Chaos. Chaos is random. Any good simulation has to take that into account.

Quote

Laser beams as weapons don't exist. Everyone clear?

Not True. Read up on THEL, the boeing YAL-1 or the HELLADS system.

[Tweaks]

J Echo, on 15 November 2011 - 05:36 PM, said:

[shakes head] Giant humanoid robots piloted by humans are possible; indeed, current technology allows smaller humanoid robots piloted by humans. Determining what it would be like when scaled up is not relative or "open to interpretation"--it is a scientifically determinable thing.

That doesn't mean it's easy to figure out, but the answer isn't subjective. Physicists have software which can predict how various vehicles and, yes, robots should behave in motion, and it's generally fairly accurate. Who knows? Twenty years from now, some rich company may have built a working Jenner-sized mech just to show off. Probably Honda.

You just don't get it do you. This is not a game based on real world physics or real world scientific advances. It's based on the world of BattleTech and the physics in THAT world. If they say, in a BattleTech tech manual that an 80 tons 'Mech can jump-jet 30 meters high and land on one foot without breaking, than SO BE IT.

If this was a Star Wars game would you ask the devs to mute all sounds while in space when we all know that in the movies, you hear them? It wouldn't be Star Wars if they did. Same thing goes with BattleTech.

J Echo, on 15 November 2011 - 05:36 PM, said:

Once more (and I am wondering why I am repeating myself), I'm not remotely interested in the Battletech universe's physics. So the question I would ask is, "If we in our real world had a working battlemech with combat lasers on it, how would the lasers work?" And that's what I would try to simulate. But (and here I go with the repetition again) this appears to be completely moot--is there any reasonable benefit for anyone in our continuing this conversation?

Well tough luck, this game is based on BattleTech and its physics as it is described and defined within that fictive universe. It's not based on modern day scientific advancements and theories. Your reasoning is all wrong. The correct question to ask yourself is rather "based on the descriptions and information available in the canon, how can we best represent what it would feel like to fire a large laser in a 'Mech".

All references to modern day physics and reality is completely out of scope for this game. That's a fact whether you like it or not. If you want to put yourself in the shoes of a MechWarrior, you have to situate yourself in the BattleTech universe, not modern day.

Edited by Tweaks, 15 November 2011 - 06:00 PM.

[Tweaks]

J Echo, on 15 November 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

Oh, no I don't. Don't think so binary. I can love mechs and the Mechwarrior storyline but shun the Battletech arbitrary rules. That's how I roll. ; )

Then you roll the wrong way, and I'm sorry to say that you may not like this game after all. Go play Battlefield 3 or some other game based on real world technology then, cause MWO won't ever be as you wish it to become.

Edited by Tweaks, 15 November 2011 - 06:03 PM.

[Hodo]

Eradikitten, on 15 November 2011 - 02:20 PM, said:

MPBT3025 was very good at demonstrating why going to the hit table is required: the Blackjacks were largely dominating the field due to the pinpoint accuracy on their AC-2s and the ability to remove someone's head from outside LRM range with it. Additionally, there is actually a piece of equipment that allows for that pinpoint accuracy: the targeting computer.

Secondly heat rules need to be strictly followed. This is another thing that reduces the effect of boating up a mech, and its associated absurd alpha strikes: if you run the risk of spontanious engine shut down, or even reactor core breach, you aren't going to do it often. Further, it makes flamers and Inferno SRMs useful.

Third, indirect LRM fire needs to be implimented. If one of your scout mechs can see the target, you should be able to volley some LRMs at it (If in range) This makes light scout mechs such as the Locust useful on the battlefield (Giving newbies that can't pilot anything else an essential battlefield role) and makes battlefield tactics more important than gladiator style one on one slugathons. If this game is really supposed to be about online teamwork, indirect fire is essential.

Fourth: Customizing your mech should be just as expensive as it is in the books, but access to official varients should be easy. This again reduces the chance of boating, but would also provide an in game money sink that very wealthy players would be able to use.

Finally: Terrain needs to be WIDELY varied. MPBT3025 had an issue with bland backgrounds, though this is forgivable as it was in beta. All the MW2 games did as well, though they were on very primative computers. World of Tanks (which too many people are comparing this to) really fails on this account.

While this was true about the BJ1 and its AC2s of doom. The thing that made the BJ1 so dangerous was the fact it moved backwards as fast as some mechs moved forwards. And its sniper accuracy. If they removed the laser accuracy of the weapons, and made you actually have to lead the target or compensate for movement it wouldnt be so bad. The only time it would get bad is when someone stands still and lets themselves get shot in the head.

The last statement is the trueth and there is no arguing that.

[Eradikitten]

Quote

the dice rolls alone are a deal-breaker

The issue I run into is the fact that the mechs are balanced around the dicerolls. This is part of the reason all the various singleplayer mechwarrior games are so easy; The armor levels are designed around a certain %% chance to hit that zone. When you can zoom in and just pound on the legs of the mechs, it makes things unbalanced. Even after more than doubling the armor on the legs, people still did that, because it was the easiest way to stop many of the mechs.

Without the "hit location" dice roll they'll need to balance armor protection some other way, and every way I've expirienced thus far has been worse than the rolls.

[Demetri]

I think it is mentioned in one of the battletech Rule books that they understand some of the physics to be totally wrong. It stated that a lot of the weaponry should have ranges easily 3 times what they have right now, that a Long range Missle not being affective at...one sec let me grab my Battletech Core Rule Book...360 yards is very flawed thinking, but they had to shorten the ranges because it would require too much playing surface for most people to play, along with other reasons.
We have weapon systems today that can fire sidewinder missiles up to twenty two miles to it's target, the Phoenix missile carried by the f-14 tomcats had a range of 110 miles(obviously without any visual target reference). The main cannon on a M1 Abrams can fire at targets just shy of 2 miles, with a targeting computer calculating most of the variables for the shot including boresight alignment data, ammunition temperature, air temperature, barometric pressure, ammo type, and obviously range to the target.
I don't know about you, but that kind of combat, that kind of realism, taking out your opponent from miles away, without having to do the aiming yourself is not what I want from my Mechwarrior experience. That would be realism, just think of what a targeting computer can do for you in 400 years, because that is how much time we have according to the battletech timeline before the first Mackie rolls out of the assembly line.

Edited for a grammar error.

Edited by Demetri, 15 November 2011 - 06:46 PM.

[John Dragon]

Can i just say i think everyone is looking at this topic as if it's black and white. A sci-fi universe is always based off our reality. The Laws of Physics and such in comparison are very similar, just in the sci-fi world, they bend the rules to allow for other technologies and to make the story more engaging. Yes, i think that the physics of the game could become a little more "balanced" or a better word might be better, but to do this I think the developers are going to need to take aspects from both the tabletop game and reality to create a more enjoyable experience. That's my 2 cents on the topic.

[Yeach]

Seth, on 15 November 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

The OP certainly laid out some of the best balancing aspects of the table top game and how those same balances could be translated into MWO. Not a single one of those suggestions was along the lines adopting movement/attack phases or dice rolling.

Eradikitten, on 15 November 2011 - 02:20 PM, said:

Anyhow, first and foremost I would like to see MWO do something bold that would largely get rid of the discussions of "boating" or "pinpoint accuracy" or if Alpha Strikes should be allowed: The reticule isn't the impact point of the weapons, it is the mechwarrior's target designator. You target the enemy mech, and click fire, and the mech's onboard computers handle the weapons directly firing at that target. And each weapon rolls to hit off the 2d6 hit table.

That looks like dice rolling to me.

[Yeach]

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

What you've been going on about is like running up to Peter Jackson and saying "You know, Lord of the Rings was good as a book, but for the movies can we get rid of the Hobbits and magic and add guns to make it more realistic?"

I compare this more to like how Peter Jackson killed off Saruman by falling off of Orthanc at the beginning of Return of the King (movie) instead of dying at the hands of Wormtongue after Saruman set the Shire on fire Return of the King (book).

[Bear Shaman]

I'm going to take a chance here and side with the Tabletop crowd, because I honestly don't think they're looking for a direct translation of the TT game into a Mechwarrior game. Using the most prevalent example in this thread, a die roll in the TT is an abstract interpretation of an imperfect targeting computer dealing with the awkward movement of its own mech (not to mention the chaos of combat) to try and attack a specific point on an enemy mech.

Best case scenario? There are no trees, debris, or smoke in the way, the enemy is not camouflaged, and both mechs are standing still. You'll get a dead-on shot a lot more easily that way. But in the Mechwarrior universe, the computer often has to deal with more variables than that, and it'll slip up to a degree.

Remove the abstraction of an actual die roll, and you've still got an imperfect targeting computer. Want to aim the weapons manually? That's an option too, but it'll be a fair bit slower and less reliable to deal with a pitching, rolling mech without electronic aid. If you seek a simulation, then you cannot want easy, direct control over the weapons on these mechs. The laser/SRM launcher/AC-20 isn't in your hand, it's mounted on a Battlemech to which you only have a loose connection. Past games have failed as simulators in this respect, having largely ignored the laws of the universe in which the Mechwarrior games take place.

It seems to me that, even among the sim fans, we have a conflict of interests. Some like the idea of piloting an in-universe Battlemech, with all the limitations that entails. Others seem to want to pilot a tank with legs, minus the Battletech/Mechwarrior lore. Without condemning the second camp of gamers, I have to say I fall into the first, right alongside Kudzu. This game takes place within a fictional universe that I'd like to be a part of. Those who want direct control over their weapons... I don't know. I guess it's just unfortunate for you that Steel Battalion failed to sell in significant numbers, and unfortunate for us all that the sequel looks so cruddy.

[Dilettante]

Dicerolls were a major weapon balancing factor in the TT. The armor was made comparable in many of the computer games, but shot distribution was not. And since the amount of damage (by number of shots) needed to cripple a mech is roughly the same, but the shot distribution is nowhere near, there are at least several ways to deal with this:

• Add in inaccuracy engine so you can Harrison Bergeron everyone... so adding a distribution spread to hitscan weapons, et al and fire pulse lasers like a Heavy's minigun in TF2
  
• Rebalance weapons/level of 'kill' level armor to counter to any semblance of the original system, particularly with critical extremities. This can include things like 'style of hit' like requiring sustained pointing at a single spot with lasers, especially where it is 'naturally hot' with lasers instead of simple hitscan to the traditional 'zones'. Force players to be more accurate to really deal damage with perfectly accurate hitscan weapons. When you're blasting the shin of a mech, the knee, and then the thigh, it counts the same as hitting one of those spots 3 times in the TT. So breaking down the 'hit zones' further can be another way without making the game too realistic.
  
• Keep it as is to existing comparable games and play Virtual ON: Inner Sphere Edition, and might as well add in Aerotech bombing runs that you input like an Etch-A-Sketch after kill streaks so it can really feel like Modern Warfare 3.

[CeeKay Boques]

Bear Shaman, on 15 November 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

1

Remove the abstraction of an actual die roll, and you've still got an imperfect targeting computer. Want to aim the weapons manually? That's an option too, but it'll be a fair bit slower and less reliable to deal with a pitching, rolling mech without electronic aid. If you seek a simulation, then you cannot want easy, direct control over the weapons on these mechs. The laser/SRM launcher/AC-20 isn't in your hand, it's mounted on a Battlemech to which you only have a loose connection. Past games have failed as simulators in this respect, having largely ignored the laws of the universe in which the Mechwarrior games take place.

It seems to me that, even among the sim fans, we have a conflict of interests. Some like the idea of piloting an in-universe Battlemech, with all the limitations that entails. Others seem to want to pilot a tank with legs, minus the Battletech/Mechwarrior lore. Without condemning the second camp of gamers, I have to say I fall into the first, right alongside Kudzu. This game takes place within a fictional universe that I'd like to be a part of. Those who want direct control over their weapons... I don't know. I guess it's just unfortunate for you that Steel Battalion failed to sell in significant numbers, and unfortunate for us all that the sequel looks so cruddy.

I'll bite, and listen. So, I merely place my reticule over the target, and the targeting computer "helps me out". My job is to move the torso, and the legs, at various speeds. How can you make moving the torso and legs so exciting, so absolutely complex and thrilling that I can get over the fact that shooting is a by product of my robot? Because in MW4, half the fun was pulling that friggin' trigger. So, now that's mostly gone, because hey, maybe it'll hit, maybe not even if I"m still there's still a chance my TC won't comply... how complex can you make the rest of MWO so I'm not bored to death?

[Forsakened]

J Echo, on 15 November 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

How in the Hell would you know what I want?

The only things I've stated about what I want is that (1) I don't want tabletop, and (2) I want more sim. Yet you automatically assume (incorrectly) that I want the opposite end of what you erroneously think is a binary slider between "tabletop" and "arcade."

In reality, it isn't a binary slider, regardless of whether or not I fall on an extreme. It's at least a trinary graph. I fall on the "sim" point, the average gamer falls on the "arcade" point, and you and all the other tabletoppers fall on the "abstract" point.

All three of them are mutually incompatible, but, for good or bad, it looks like the game is going to try to cater to all three by offering some sort of impossible middle ground. "A good compromise leaves everyone unhappy."

(And to think that I'd sworn I was done with forum arguments forever. Hah.)

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 03:06 PM, said:

Did you ever stop to think about what you wanted to be simming? If you buy a flight simulator you'd expect the planes to handle like planes, not motorcycles. If you buy a train simulator you'd expect the trains to handle like trains and not spaceships... so why is it that when you buy a battletech simulator you expect it to act like something that isn't battletech?

Kudzu I feel what you are saying on this one.

And like some others have already said this is not a table top game, and all questions/comments referring to these items need to addressed under a new post or another website.

Edited by Forsakened, 15 November 2011 - 09:35 PM.

[Yeach]

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 03:06 PM, said:

Did you ever stop to think about what you wanted to be simming? If you buy a flight simulator you'd expect the planes to handle like planes, not motorcycles. If you buy a train simulator you'd expect the trains to handle like trains and not spaceships... so why is it that when you buy a battletech simulator you expect it to act like something that isn't battletech?

Because um Battletech is table top meaning is above ground ie strategic mode.
If you wanted something Battletech it would be more like mechcommander type game.
Mechwarrior is at ground level and more to simulation mode.

[Bear Shaman]

Technoviking, on 15 November 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

I'll bite, and listen. So, I merely place my reticule over the target, and the targeting computer "helps me out". My job is to move the torso, and the legs, at various speeds. How can you make moving the torso and legs so exciting, so absolutely complex and thrilling that I can get over the fact that shooting is a by product of my robot? Because in MW4, half the fun was pulling that friggin' trigger. So, now that's mostly gone, because hey, maybe it'll hit, maybe not even if I"m still there's still a chance my TC won't comply... how complex can you make the rest of MWO so I'm not bored to death?

I see your point, but to at least partially answer your question, a lot of the fun would be in finding ways of confusing your enemies' targeting computers, not to mention setting up a shot that your mech can handle properly. But again, that appeals more to a gamer whose primary interest lies in storyline immersion. It's the sort of thing that makes you feel not just powerful, but clever. That said, there'd have to be some way to maintain the visceral thrill of firing and hitting your intended target. Might be interesting if each mech's computer had its own unique foibles for which you'd have to compensate. It'd be a bit like guessing at the direction and strength of the wind with an actual firearm. Makes the experience seem less like random luck and more like a reward for becoming familiar with your own machine. "How will my Centurion handle this movement, this forest, and the speed of the other mech?" and so forth. Then again, that sounds like an awful lot of complicated programming, so I still see some virtue in more of a point-and-click interface.

Dang, that got difficult in a hurry.

EDIT: I just had a funny thought about purchasing an old used star-league mech: "Now, she pulls to the right a little, and the LRM-10 gets fussy when you're above 60 km/h, so I'd watch out for that. Oh, and keep an eye out for that nasty coolant leak. But other than that, she's a great daily walker."

Edited by Bear Shaman, 15 November 2011 - 09:25 PM.

[Kudzu]

Technoviking, on 15 November 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

I'll bite, and listen. So, I merely place my reticule over the target, and the targeting computer "helps me out". My job is to move the torso, and the legs, at various speeds. How can you make moving the torso and legs so exciting, so absolutely complex and thrilling that I can get over the fact that shooting is a by product of my robot? Because in MW4, half the fun was pulling that friggin' trigger. So, now that's mostly gone, because hey, maybe it'll hit, maybe not even if I"m still there's still a chance my TC won't comply... how complex can you make the rest of MWO so I'm not bored to death?

Here's the part I think you're missing when we talk about cone of fire: you have complete control over it and your actions are a lot more involved instead of just point-shoot-everything hits the same pixel.

If your standing right next to a mech and you're not moving it should be small enough to target individual sections and not miss-- but as your increase your range, speed and heat it expands causing misses and scatter in a direct comparison to the TT. The game goes from being a completely twitch-based mockery to a twitch and tactical exercise. Do you stand still and get the easy shot while making yourself a target or do you move (and how fast?) and increase your chance to miss? Do you take the snap shot while running and heated up and hope to get lucky or do you slow down and wait for your targeting and heat to settle down and risk being hit?


Dilettante compared it to the heavy from TF2, but that's not quite right. The heavy's shots always scattered, under expanding reticule CoF your actions decided the amount of scatter-- just like in TT.

Forsakened, on 15 November 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

Kudzu I feel what you are saying on this one.

And like some others have already said this is not a table top game, and all questions/comments referring to these items need to addressed under a new post or another website.

Your right, it's not. And if they hadn't said they would be rebooting the series while sticking to the TT as best they can I wouldn't even have bothered signing up because the old MW, MA, and MC games were basically BT skins plastered over "generic mecha game".

[Yeach]

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

If your standing right next to a mech and you're not moving it should be small enough to target individual sections and not miss-- but as your increase your range, speed and heat it expands causing misses and scatter in a direct comparison to the TT. The game goes from being a completely twitch-based mockery to a twitch and tactical exercise. Do you stand still and get the easy shot while making yourself a target or do you move (and how fast?) and increase your chance to miss? Do you take the snap shot while running and heated up and hope to get lucky or do you slow down and wait for your targeting and heat to settle down and risk being hit?

this almost sounds like:
If you are in an assault mech you stop and shoot
and if you are in light mech you just run around and hope you get a lucky shot and not get hit.

It doesn't sound (to me anyway) like a fluid mobile game.
I rather have the a more mobile MW3/MW4 game where accurate move and shoot were the order of the day.

[Kudzu]

Yeach, on 15 November 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

this almost sounds like:
If you are in an assault mech you stop and shoot
and if you are in light mech you just run around and hope you get a lucky shot and not get hit.

It doesn't sound (to me anyway) like a fluid mobile game.
I rather have the a more mobile MW3/MW4 game where accurate move and shoot were the order of the day.

It can be played like that, but standing still means that your making it easier to be hit (possibly rattled around making it harder to shoot)--even an assault can only take so much damage. The light could use it's speed to get around behind the target before slowing down to hit better. There are upsides and downsides to every choice and it's up to you to balance them.

Like I said, it installs a sense of tactical play that the previous titles were severely lacking.