Jump to content

My thoughts on MWO.


55 replies to this topic

#41 Yeach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:09 PM

Actually now that I think about it.
A light mech's walking speed may be an assault mech's running speed in which case the light mech should be more accurate weapons platform than an assault mech.

Does that make sense?

Edited by Yeach, 15 November 2011 - 11:16 PM.


#42 Kudzu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:12 PM

View PostYeach, on 15 November 2011 - 11:09 PM, said:

Actually now that I think about it.
A light mech's cruise speed may be an assault mech's maximum speed in which case the light mech should be more accurate weapons platform than an assault mech.

Does that make sense?

That's exactly right, but it pays for it in less survivability and less overall firepower.

#43 Deathbane

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 16 November 2011 - 03:29 AM

No to cone of fire counterstrike style. Its ******* retarded.

Instead of having a expanding cone, have a recticle EXACTLY where the weapon is going to hit.

Then make that recticle 'wander' based on movement, conditions etc to simulate the targeting computer.

That way it becomes a skill to keep the recticle on target, is actually hard, and at the same time doesnt make the player feel powerless about where the shot ends up. Both crowds are then satisfied, and everyone can live in peace and harmony.

I hope they implement separate arm aiming to accomplish this similar to mech3.

#44 Kagemusha

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 03:57 AM

I think that Chromehounds handled this really well. First, the customization ability was amazing, but I wouldn't want that in a Btech game. However, here's some things it did:

(1) it took gun position into consideration when firing. If one gun in the grouping was in the upper right corner, and the other lower left, it was unlikely that when fired they'd hit the same position. They'd be close, but there would be some spread.
(2) there was more 'kick' to the ballistic guns than most MW4 games.

(3) Movement shook the reticle a bit, and you had to work to stabilize it. This also depended on teh weapons that you were using (if I recall correctly).


---

Honestly, Chromehounds was an amazing mech sim, just with bad multiplayer coding =/

Edited by Kagemusha, 16 November 2011 - 03:58 AM.


#45 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 16 November 2011 - 04:49 AM

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

*SNIP*
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?
Then you'd be shooting at a blip on a radar. The Abrams 120mm Depleted Uranium shells can destroy an enemy tank at over 1.5 miles away. As for simulations... It's all in the perspective. I wish my Tanker buddy was on the forum. You write about realism in your simulation Yet do you know what that realism would entail? I was a grunt in the Marines, I have yet to see a sim game that simulates combat like getting out there and playing a wargame with an M-16 in hand. I know, I did the Simulated combat training all over the hills of California and Korea and Okinawa.

To me the video games are just as crap as a tabletop compared to actually doing. I'll even go so far as saying the training was not even close to the live combat situation as your sims and TT are to the training. I have played both types of this game for... ever, they are both great games of combat but unless you are climbing into a Tesla pod with "rumble effects" and "heat modulators" You aren't simulating Jack. And I want pods that can do that darn it!!!!

#46 Tweaks

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 959 posts
  • LocationLaval, Quebec, Canada

Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:36 AM

View PostJ Echo, on 16 November 2011 - 04:54 AM, said:

It's physically possible to build a pilotable robot with real guns but no crazy long-range targeting system. You're all missing my entire point. This discussion is ridiculous.


You're right, it is ricidulous, cause you keep on babling the same stuff over and over even though there has been countless counter-arguments already. You're just being stubborn, or you just don't want to see the truth. What you want, the way you want it, won't ever be MWO. Forget it. PG is not making a real life simulation with 'Mech as if they were built in our present time. They are making a BattleTech game with 'Mechs the way they are in that universe. Period. End of story.

#47 Red Beard

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 845 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:36 AM

View PostTechnoviking, on 15 November 2011 - 04:13 PM, said:

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


And that is exactly what the TT rules do. No thanks.

#48 Red Beard

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 845 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:38 AM

If the action is in the hands of randomness, then it won't be a video game of any kind. It will be a point and click role playing adventure like Diablo. I cannot believe that there are actually some people that want to have dice-rolling incorporated into this game. Wow.

The smarter players will read J Echos posts for what they are. The most potent form of common sense on this thread.

Edited by Red Beard, 16 November 2011 - 09:38 AM.


#49 Red Beard

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 845 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:42 AM

View PostEradikitten, on 15 November 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

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.



It would appear that you VASTLY under estimate the devs ability to overcome this obstacle. If they DO make the game based around computer generated dice rolls, they will undoubtedly go bankrupt and be wearing barrels around the streets of Vancouver, Popeye style.

#50 Red Beard

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 845 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 11:30 AM

Quote

While MechWarrior® Online™ does refer to BattleTech® for historical and canon reference, it does not mean that it’s a direct port of the table top rules to a videogame. The table top rules are laid out to make sense for a turn based strategy game. Some of those rules just don’t apply when dealing with a real time game environment.


Quoted from today's Q and A. Answer from Paul Inouye.

That should pretty much close this discussion. No port of antiquated TT rules. Thank God for that. And thank you to the wise and benevolent development team for not trying to set the series back a few ticks.

He does mention that some of the smaller ideas are still somewhat useful, but overall, the TT rules simply do not fit.

#51 Kudzu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:20 PM

View PostRed Beard, on 16 November 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:


Quoted from today's Q and A. Answer from Paul Inouye.

That should pretty much close this discussion. No port of antiquated TT rules. Thank God for that. And thank you to the wise and benevolent development team for not trying to set the series back a few ticks.

He does mention that some of the smaller ideas are still somewhat useful, but overall, the TT rules simply do not fit.

Even though I'm well aware that you are nothing but a troll, you left out the part where they said direct port. The initiative system, for example should be dropped when moving from a turn based to real time game. No one is saying they should keep it, and that fits directly into what they actually said.

#52 Demetri

    Rookie

  • 3 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:33 PM

View PostJ Echo, on 16 November 2011 - 04:54 AM, said:

It's physically possible to build a pilotable robot with real guns but no crazy long-range targeting system. You're all missing my entire point. This discussion is ridiculous.

If you are building a machine that is supposed to be the end all of ground combat, and these targeting computers exist, why wouldn't you want to put the best targeting system in it, aside from cost reasons. It would be stupid. The before mentioned Abrams tank isn't a sophisticated, state of the art vehicle, it is pretty much the workhorse of our Calvary and is 30 years old, so surely it's targeting system in no "crazy long-range"

I don't think you got my point. You keep complaining about how everyone is missing your point, I don't think you saw my point. I would imagine the targeting computer already does a lot of that on a 'mech, the adjusting for temperature, range, all that jazz, then aims your shot properly. The part I was trying to say that realistically, which is what you want, you should be able to hit targets with long ranged weapons way over the 400 meter limit that most Battletech/Mechwarrior weapons have, hand held RPGs in the real world have affective ranges of 800+ meters, making the 400ish meter so called "long-range" missile seem rather short. I just don't think the game would be as fun if that realism came into play, where in open environments exchanges of fire would be done from kilometers apart, I want to get in the thick of it, even if i am in a long ranged exchange I still want to be able to see my target rock back as a volley of LRMs hits.

This is just how I feel about the whole "as realistic as it can get" feeling. I don't want an arcade game, but I don't want a game that gets so realist it is boring. I used to play a lot of flight simulators, and they were great, but at one point someone got me F-14 Fleet defender, that game was very realistic, to the point that you would fly for two hours, have to refuel mid air, and fly for another hour and a half before you got to your mission, just to have a 10 minute dog fight, and turn around, fly 3 or four hours back to base. I did not enjoy it.

Edited by Demetri, 16 November 2011 - 01:37 PM.


#53 Red Beard

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 845 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:41 PM

View PostKudzu, on 16 November 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

Even though I'm well aware that you are nothing but a troll, you left out the part where they said direct port. The initiative system, for example should be dropped when moving from a turn based to real time game. No one is saying they should keep it, and that fits directly into what they actually said.



^^A worthless post. Nothing to see here.

#54 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,371 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 16 November 2011 - 03:24 PM

Dear Sirs:

We need the symantics police.

Realism and Immersion are now interchangable. Otherwise, please tell us how to say " like Really real, in the BTU though".

You can laugh at realism for BT, but its the theory of futurepunk realism. Does it make semi mechanical sense? Is it "Plausable?" Does the hovercraft tank have a hovercraft engine? It does! Sure if you extropolate the data out to the end, often, no, a beam laser would probably melt the focusing ring or something, and it wouldn't it make more sense to field tanks instead of Mechs. Yes ferro fiberous armor and warp drives don't exist, nor do portable nuclear units. But the theories behind each item are thought out and detailed in the rule books, and could make sense with the right herb under the right stars with right grateful dead song playing. That's futurepunk realism. Other games don't make you feel like that. They make you feel like you are flying in a supercooled space hud in the amazing year four hundred billion, where weight means nothing and ammo self creates itself, and the transformingflyingjetcarmech flies off the ground on the jets of its own AWESOMENESS! That's a different kind of realism, where your hair stays spiked no matter what the weather. So you can poo poo "realism" in the year 3k, but if your laser melts my arm, I'd like the actuators to burn after you melt through the layers ferro and endo steel attempting to get to my XL engine which weighs "exactly this much". Realism, unto itself.

#55 Red Beard

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 845 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:49 PM

View PostTechnoviking, on 16 November 2011 - 03:24 PM, said:

Dear Sirs:

We need the symantics police.

Realism and Immersion are now interchangable. Otherwise, please tell us how to say " like Really real, in the BTU though".

You can laugh at realism for BT, but its the theory of futurepunk realism. Does it make semi mechanical sense? Is it "Plausable?" Does the hovercraft tank have a hovercraft engine? It does! Sure if you extropolate the data out to the end, often, no, a beam laser would probably melt the focusing ring or something, and it wouldn't it make more sense to field tanks instead of Mechs. Yes ferro fiberous armor and warp drives don't exist, nor do portable nuclear units. But the theories behind each item are thought out and detailed in the rule books, and could make sense with the right herb under the right stars with right grateful dead song playing. That's futurepunk realism. Other games don't make you feel like that. They make you feel like you are flying in a supercooled space hud in the amazing year four hundred billion, where weight means nothing and ammo self creates itself, and the transformingflyingjetcarmech flies off the ground on the jets of its own AWESOMENESS! That's a different kind of realism, where your hair stays spiked no matter what the weather. So you can poo poo "realism" in the year 3k, but if your laser melts my arm, I'd like the actuators to burn after you melt through the layers ferro and endo steel attempting to get to my XL engine which weighs "exactly this much". Realism, unto itself.



Exactly.

#56 Red Beard

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 845 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:52 PM

View PostKudzu, on 16 November 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

you left out the part where they said direct port.



No, no I didn't, check again. And calling people a troll is getting so friggin overdone that I think being the one who calls somebody is troll will now officially qualify YOU as the troll.

Massive fail.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users