69 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

Anjian, on 17 August 2015 - 02:00 AM, said:

Really and how is a game about warfare on walking machines that are much more vulnerable than tanks, firing at extremely short ranges that occasionally hits the environment, constantly overheating, sometimes gets its feet stuck, that is clumsy, clunky, can be immersive?

Here is why Armored Core was very immersive for me:

The overall gameplay is much smoother in ACV than I had in MWO or for that matter in any mech game I have ever used, and I have played a lot. The AC mech feels like a part of you, instead like the case of MWO, fighting you. I believe the whole tactical purpose and value of a mech is not to be a tank --- tanks do the tank job better and nothing beats them at that --- but in the whole point of a mech being an extension of the soldier, and turning him into a superman. You are not piloting a mech --- you become the mech.

Maps are much larger, much more alive. Cities maps truly look like cities. There are towers, crisscrossing skyways, tunnels... Winds blowing, there is fire and smoke in the sky, helicopters constantly flying, flak shooting about. There are drones flying about, sniper mechs hiding, tanks rolling in the street. War feels like war.

Combat is much more 3D. Being able to jump up to the top of a building and let go at the ones below, that is quite a feeling.

The missions are terrifying in the sense they send you up against great odds, sometimes nearly hopeless ones, as well as constant duels with other AC pilots. Sometimes you are sent up against things that are far bigger than you, some of those things you even wonder if they are alien.

The feeling that ACs are rare and therefore special. Those who pilot them are an extremely elite breed (Ravens, Lynxes), and yet you get the sense that they also have a screw loose in their head. When you duel another AC pilot, and read his or her bio, yeah, he or she is nuts. Most of the time, they are looking out for Number One. You get the immense satisfaction of putting away these troubled, vindictive creatures. But these personalities makes the ACs come alive, creating memorable characters like 9Ball and White Glint.

This online mission is one of my favorites in ACV. It pits a four man team against a kaiju sized mech. Much more often than not, people fail in this mission.

yes impractical as BT mechs may be thta does not negate basic physics in terms of realism. And just because the broken phyiscs make you feel AC more imemrsive, does nto change the fact that most people feel that AC behavior is wrong. On a scale like this i wouldn'T behave like this. it would be clunky, cause inertness and the way how acceleration works on that scale.

realism and physics are two different things. And there are some so basic phiysics where even a child would realise "something is wrong here"

So if you are not piloting a mehc, you are becoming one, why does AC have actually a PIlot in the mech? and just because you become a mech does not make you disable physics that apply on this scale. and when you think in MWO everythign in the mech palys against you, well, then you never ever even tried to "become the Mechwarrior". he mechwarrior is what uses the combat device and lerns to pilot it.
And the fact that you describe AC as a "become the emch" experience just shows how much of simple arcadish and more sldierlike egoshooter (in tps) AC actually is. it hardly plays in relation to mehc with human like shape.


so what are you realistic and big mapos good for when the mainfeature of compat is just arcadish? The playstyle does nto even judge the existing of a mechlike human robot, it could also be just some kind of spacecfraft like hoverthingy. Ac is anarcade shooter with a human robot like mechskin, Which even with your description of "bigger enemies etc ..." is just confirmed. And thats why AC never was te big hit over here, because it was just a nice arcade game, yet never a true "mechgame"

Anjian, on 17 August 2015 - 02:00 AM, said:

The feeling that ACs are rare and therefore special. Those who pilot them are an extremely elite breed (Ravens, Lynxes), and yet you get the sense that they also have a screw loose in their head. When you duel another AC pilot, and read his or her bio, yeah, he or she is nuts. Most of the time, they are looking out for Number One. You get the immense satisfaction of putting away these troubled, vindictive creatures. But these personalities makes the ACs come alive, creating memorable characters like 9Ball and White Glint.

probably because when you pilot a divice like AC has, you brain will sooner or later get heavily damaged by the weird physics applying to it.
Also, "story" of those opponent pilots is just story. It does not necessarily drive the "mech" part in the mechgame.

Ac suffers the same as hawken: they dont deliver mech feeling. Hawken is a very nice arenashooter, but western mechfans mech fans won't be happy there.

And except of being 3D those "bosses" are functioning like back in the sideccrollers arcade games I palyed on my Sega mastersystem 2 or the commodre 64. Just a new dimenstion added. All that is added is another dimensions.

I palyed tons of these arcade shooters in my childhood, futuristic space scrifi setup, fantasy world setup, realistic world setup, with planes, helicopters, and many many more. AC creates just this: another arcade shooter feeling, just 3D.

AC is a good and entertaining arcade shooter, yet not a good mechgame.

Edited by Lily from animove, 17 August 2015 - 02:33 AM.

[Anjian]

Lily from animove, on 17 August 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

yes impractical as BT mechs may be thta does not negate basic physics in terms of realism. And just because the broken phyiscs make you feel AC more imemrsive, does nto change the fact that most people feel that AC behavior is wrong. On a scale like this i wouldn'T behave like this. it would be clunky, cause inertness and the way how acceleration works on that scale.

I think this is an excuse for people who can't play "fast" games. They want slow games because they can't deal with fast games. Can you?

The main problem with BT is that mechs portrayed the way they are there, are simply not tactical viable. Speed is the essense of survivability, it is its own armor. Mechs the way they are portrayed in BT are dead meat to a team of Apache helicopters or a SEAL team.

Quote

realism and physics are two different things. And there are some so basic phiysics where even a child would realise "something is wrong here"

So if you are not piloting a mehc, you are becoming one, why does AC have actually a PIlot in the mech? and just because you become a mech does not make you disable physics that apply on this scale. and when you think in MWO everythign in the mech palys against you, well, then you never ever even tried to "become the Mechwarrior". he mechwarrior is what uses the combat device and lerns to pilot it.

Really or is this because you cannot deal with a 'fast' game.

More and more, this is becoming your excuse for your inabiilty to deal with a fast game.

By the way, there are ACs that don't need a pilot, and there are a lot of them, including UNACs. There are autonomous ACs, something you don't see in other games. There are also active drones as well. ACs with humans are needed because of human decisions, plus the fact that the Ravens, Lynxes, are themselves special; like geniuses they got skills no human or AI can replicate.

Quote

And the fact that you describe AC as a "become the emch" experience just shows how much of simple arcadish and more sldierlike egoshooter (in tps) AC actually is. it hardly plays in relation to mehc with human like shape.

You don't know how an arcade game mech feels like (Mechassault). Arcade games are linear, and AC is not. AC is closer to a flight simulator because there is gravity. Once you run out of boost, you descend to the ground. If you are not boosting, you are descending. Arcade games don't have a sense of gravity nor do they have a sense of energy management. There is rapid acceleration and deceleration.

Quote

so what are you realistic and big mapos good for when the mainfeature of compat is just arcadish? The playstyle does nto even judge the existing of a mechlike human robot, it could also be just some kind of spacecfraft like hoverthingy. Ac is anarcade shooter with a human robot like mechskin, Which even with your description of "bigger enemies etc ..." is just confirmed. And thats why AC never was te big hit over here, because it was just a nice arcade game, yet never a true "mechgame"

Arcade games have enemies that come from only one direction. They are linear, not three dimensional. You obviously never played AC, its definitely not arcade like. Its too difficult to be arcade like.

Quote

probably because when you pilot a divice like AC has, you brain will sooner or later get heavily damaged by the weird physics applying to it.
Also, "story" of those opponent pilots is just story. It does not necessarily drive the "mech" part in the mechgame.

It drives the mech part of the game because it gives each AC a unique personality. ACs themselves are special beause each is unique and there is never an exact copy of one or the other. Each AC reflects its pilot in fact.

Quote

Ac suffers the same as hawken: they dont deliver mech feeling. Hawken is a very nice arenashooter, but western mechfans mech fans won't be happy there.

In many ways, Hawken delivers a better mech feeling than MWO. It feels much more technological. It has a more prominent bird like feel, walk and stance to the mechs. The joints creak quite a bit more, and so is the impression of foot press and movement. Everything about a Hawken mech feels more mechanical. When the sniper guns shoot they actually recoil, the elbows bend backward and spring back again. There is more articulation in the Hawken mech.

AC mechs also feature a high level of articulation. Their shoulder weapons swing out from the back to replace your arm weapons which you can eject. They can bend their knees, their arms, they can hold things, they can throw things. That's what a mech should. Not like a walking turret with legs.

Quote

And except of being 3D those "bosses" are functioning like back in the sideccrollers arcade games I palyed on my Sega mastersystem 2 or the commodre 64. Just a new dimenstion added. All that is added is another dimensions.

I palyed tons of these arcade shooters in my childhood, futuristic space scrifi setup, fantasy world setup, realistic world setup, with planes, helicopters, and many many more. AC creates just this: another arcade shooter feeling, just 3D.

AC is a good and entertaining arcade shooter, yet not a good mechgame.

You never played Hawken or AC, and yet you want to judge it. It is becoming more and more obvious in my conversation with you that you know nothing, played nothing of these games. I actually played a lot of arcade games and sidescrollers, they don't have the sense of inertia, energy management, acceleration, deceleration that AC has. Its closer to a flight simulator with mech characteristics. Arcade games rely on patterns not sophisticated AI opponents like AC has.

By the way, WTF are western mechfans? There are no western mechfans; there are only mech fans period. You honestly think there are "western mechfans"? Gunpla modeling is very popular in the "West" by the way, and so is the Gundam franchise in general. Look how big are Gundam communities on Facebook compared to Mechwarrior/Battletech. Robotech is much more remembered in the West then Battletech. The legendary popular "unseen" in Battletech are Japanese mecha copies. And Transformers are what? American? Knights of Sidonia is a Netflix exclusive; why does a big company like Netflix go through with the effort to single out an anime series for a Netflix exclusive.

Edited by Anjian, 17 August 2015 - 04:37 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Sry I'm done arguing with you, your stupid "2 fast for you" argulment just shows that you never tried to have a objective judgement on the discussion.

We were judging how mechs of that size would be impossible for this especially with a pilot in them. this has nothing to do with "can you handle the speed" Nor has "2 fast for you" anything to do with the game playing arcadish or not.
Firing weapons in hawkens fells like firing toys, especially the TOW feels more like I fire a Nerf gun. Cmon no idea what you expect from a mech to feel like, but the scale on whcih said things happen would not in a real world be like this. This would be on robots similar sized as humans maybe, but not on the scale those games are made of.

Next thing is implying that I never played Hawken or AC. God your argumentation is so bad.

Edited by Lily from animove, 17 August 2015 - 04:44 AM.

[Anjian]

Lily from animove, on 17 August 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

Sry I'm done arguing with you, your stupid "2 fast for you" argulment just shows that you never tried to have a objective judgement on the discussion.

We were judging how mechs of that size would be impossible for this especially with a pilot in them. this has nothing to do with "can you handle the speed" Nor has "2 fast for you" anything to do with the game playing arcadish or not.
Firing weapons in hawkens fells like firing toys, especially the TOW feels more like I fire a Nerf gun. Cmon no idea what you expect from a mech to feel like, but the scale on whcih said things happen would not in a real world be like this. This would be on robots similar sized as humans maybe, but not on the scale those games are made of.

Next thing is implying that I never played Hawken or AC. God your argumentation is so bad.

Indeed, you never played Hawken or AC. Really you think Hawken's guns are like toy guns? They are a much better emulation of guns than MWO has; they got trajectories, strafes, streak trails, recoils, even a sense of dispersion. Barrels overheat and they jam. You throw a grenade from a grenade launcher and it bounces off a few times from the ground and explodes with collateral damage. Firing rockets feels like firing rockets, they twist, they leave a smoke trail, and it doesn't feel like a shotgun. At least in FPS games they are serious about emulating guns because that is part of the fun. Gunfire on MWO doesn't look like proper gunfire. They don't sound right, look right, act right. There is no true autocannon, no true machinegun. Ballistics should have zones of dispersion; the more rapid the fire, the greater the dispersion. Shorter barrels add to the dispersion as well as guns with greater recoil aka more powerful guns.

Edited by Anjian, 17 August 2015 - 05:10 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Anjian, on 17 August 2015 - 05:00 AM, said:

Indeed, you never played Hawken or AC. Really you think Hawken's guns are like toy guns? They are a much better emulation of guns than MWO has; they got trajectories, strafes, streak trails, recoils, even a sense of dispersion. Barrels overheat and they jam. You throw a grenade from a grenade launcher and it bounces off a few times from the ground and explodes with collateral damage. Firing rockets feels like firing rockets, they twist, they leave a smoke trail, and it doesn't feel like a shotgun. At least in FPS games they are serious about emulating guns because that is part of the fun. Gunfire on MWO doesn't look like proper gunfire. They don't sound right, look right, act right. There is no true autocannon, no true machinegun. Ballistics should have zones of dispersion; the more rapid the fire, the greater the dispersion. Shorter barrels add to the dispersion as well as guns with greater recoil aka more powerful guns.

hawken guns feel like any regular "soldier" game guns. Espeically those hawken "missiles," they look and feel more like bazookas being shot. and their appearence makes 0 sense on the scale they are. Then you speak of overheating and jamming as if this doesn't exists in MWO. So its better than MWo because its also existing in MWO? do you even .. think about what you say?
also rockets twist? wow, how so? modern rockets don't even twist like this, again you are probably infected with the weird japanese genre where all those missiles make weird circular movements. And all the genres strynge non natural behavior.



but hey even in this vid the guy doesn'T "instan stops" and has to break by thrusting into the direction he flies. At least some basic physics are still applying here.


You speak of "better effects" in terms of "less realistic" if that is your definition of better, then yes hawken does it better.



the entire trail and such does not even exist in shoting rockets like this. Even MWO missiles are overdoing this totally.

But tell me how does your hawken immersion go when you look at your mech and your cockpit, these 2 things do not even belong together. None of the mechs has any external desing mathcing the cockpits view.

hawken feels like playign TF2 in mech skins. A arena shooter with a unrealsitic physics appling. In fact having played TF2 makes it supereasy to jump into Hawken by the feelings of mechanics. And it kinda steel feels like playing a soldier/scout mixed character with the gun of a heavy on the other arm. Not even speakign about how those energy orbs even grant you hitboiints, typical Arena shooter "medikit style" Not even speakign about hwo the engineer is just a copy of the tf medic. Which is quite giving hawken an even more "fun shotter" feeling than mech immersion.

Edited by Lily from animove, 17 August 2015 - 05:44 AM.

[Tesunie]

For AC, I always just considered that it might be remote controlled from somewhere else. Just felt that way to me as I was playing, and makes more sense to me that fast and nimble craft like that probably would, considering the restricting room for a pilot seat.

For Macross, you have to consider a lot of the effects (seen as you are talking about missile barrages here) where for show, cool graphics, and was an animation. It just looked cool and didn't need to be "immersive" or "real" to just be a cool effect to have. Also, Robotechnology may have altered how the missiles (not rockets to be a bit more specific) work, making them appear different (and make massive barrages possible)? Do recall, they often times did a barrage not on a single target, but on several targets. And they were able to use that "Robotechnology" to actually shoot down missiles as they came in. This meant that larger barrages may be needed.


Overall, I'm not really going to touch much else on this debate. It sounds like a circular argument trying to change someone's opinion on a game based on X reasons, when they are entitled to their opinion. Just about all the games mentioned here have been games I've really enjoyed. And I've enjoyed them each as they were, without comparing them to the others, nor really caring about "physics" in the games. They are games, designed to entertain. Some people will like them, others wont.

Is there really even any reason to try and argue over it all? Each person has different immersion expectations, and different things that will break away from that. For some people, AC moved too fast and was too twitchy, breaking it out of the realm of possibility for them. For some people, Macross is produced by a company that "tried to hurt their Battletech", so they boycott it at every chance (often times without even looking at what it was). Etc.

We could go down the list of games, and we could each say why we liked or didn't like each of them. We don't even need to have good reasons to not like a game. It would also be completely our opinion (no matter what it is), and should affect no one else around us. (Just my 2 cents worth.)

Debate the games. Don't try to debate or change opinion.

Marack Drock, on 17 August 2015 - 05:13 AM, said:

which would kill the pilot from the g-forces.

...

I've played AC, a lot. I have NEVER gotten any unit in that game to move like that. Something doesn't look right in that video. Almost like it was turbo-speed instead? Maybe someone double speed the recording or something, but those speeds are not what is the average within the game.

AC can have some very fast movement changes, but that isn't it. That was mega-crazy movement changes. (AKA: Probably best not to believe everything you see on Youtube, though it can give you a good idea about a game as well.)

[Anjian]

Lily from animove, on 17 August 2015 - 05:36 AM, said:

hawken guns feel like any regular "soldier" game guns. Espeically those hawken "missiles," they look and feel more like bazookas being shot. and their appearence makes 0 sense on the scale they are. Then you speak of overheating and jamming as if this doesn't exists in MWO. So its better than MWo because its also existing in MWO? do you even .. think about what you say?

Sigh. Guns are supposed to sound like guns. Don't you get it? Somehow they make 0 sense because they feel like regular soldier guns?

You are the one making zero sense.

Sure overheating exists in MWO, but not the way it does in Hawken --- this is a clear indication you don't know what you are talking about the game.

In Hawken, jamming occurs when weapons overheat. And you know the weapons are overheating because you can see the gun barrels glow red. So you start shooting, the gun barrels cool down, the glow turns back into the metal color. Plus when you overheat, your mech doesn't stop and die, you are still able to move around, find a safe spot to cool your guns down. Maybe use the safe spot to spout a repair drone to repair your mech.

Quote

also rockets twist? wow, how so? modern rockets don't even twist like this, again you are probably infected with the weird japanese genre where all those missiles make weird circular movements. And all the genres strynge non natural behavior.



but hey even in this vid the guy doesn'T "instan stops" and has to break by thrusting into the direction he flies. At least some basic physics are still applying here.

That kind of missile firing is "patented" with Macross. You don't see it with other mecha series because that is the signature style of Macross.

Interestingly, LRMs in Mechwarrior is doing a modified copy of this idea, since Battletech comes from Robotech which comes from Veritech in Macross. There is nothing realistic about the flight patterns of LRMs, they have zero mass and inertia, their flights are determined strictly for the game use.

Hawken does not use this. Their rockets are more like RPGs.

By the way, air to air missiles used in modern jet fighters are capable of over 20G maneuvers. And that's back like two decades ago. You don't however, fire swarms of missiles on the same target because the missiles will interfere, jam and collide with each other. Thus the missile swarm on Mechwarrior's LRM's are also wrong. So is the SRM fire when they are fired as a bunch. Even in Katyushas when rockets are fired, they are rippled, not at the same time, but one after another. This is similar to the effect of SRMs when they are fired through a single tube. Or to be more exact, the way the Clan mechs fire their LRMs.

But if you do realistic firing, the effects of LRMs and SRMs won't be as effective either. It would break their balance.

On the other hand, if you are forced to swarm fire missiles, missiles would have to fan out at the initial launch stage in order to prevent interference and collision. Then as they speed towards their target, they would have to maintain a minimum separate distance from each other, again to prevent interference and collision. As they go terminal and heads towards the target, they would have to do it one by one in succession, again to prevent interference and collision.

The effect of that, surprisingly, won't be dissimilar from the way you see the missile swarms in Macross.

Quote

You speak of "better effects" in terms of "less realistic" if that is your definition of better, then yes hawken does it better.



the entire trail and such does not even exist in shoting rockets like this. Even MWO missiles are overdoing this totally.

But tell me how does your hawken immersion go when you look at your mech and your cockpit, these 2 things do not even belong together. None of the mechs has any external desing mathcing the cockpits view.

hawken feels like playign TF2 in mech skins. A arena shooter with a unrealsitic physics appling. In fact having played TF2 makes it supereasy to jump into Hawken by the feelings of mechanics. And it kinda steel feels like playing a soldier/scout mixed character with the gun of a heavy on the other arm. Not even speakign about how those energy orbs even grant you hitboiints, typical Arena shooter "medikit style" Not even speakign about hwo the engineer is just a copy of the tf medic. Which is quite giving hawken an even more "fun shotter" feeling than mech immersion.

It still doesn't change that Hawken is a lot of fun, and in fact quite a bit more than MWO at times. Unrealistic physics? Man, ever played Star Wars and all those games involving space fighters? Their weird physics is just as similar.

Hawken is quite immersive for me because:

Their presentation and polish is superb. Its literally A game. I put MWO around C- for presentation.

We expects mechs to be look, feel and sound technological. Hawken mechs have great movement, superb articulation, great cockpit presentation. They have all sorts of mechanical animations you don't see in MWO mechs, like folding into a turret, or the froglike movement when they boost. (I have a real problem with MWO, is that their mechs don't feel at least mechlike of the so many mech games I ever played. I can't get the feeling there are giant people inside rubber suits in MWO mechs. The fact is, even a light mech with 35 tons, 35 tons is still massively heavy, and you need to feel that 35 tons, not 3.5 pounds).

Their junk-punk look goes well to the dystopian theme of the universe. But if you don't like the look, you can change the head, the torso, the arms, the legs, and make it look like an entirely different mech, but still keep the same stats. They have full modularity in design appearance, something we have not seen in a mech game since Armored Core and Chromehounds.

Maps are well designed. Large, art wise top notch, great dystopian themes and yet they manage a high FPS. There are a lot of fighting on top of buildings and below buildings. There is nothing that would mistakenly block your fire, or trap your feet. The maps and the mech sizes scaled properly (new River City still has problems with scaling), and those Hawken maps makes you feel like you are within a city, not someone with a rubber suit rampaging in a staged city model like the set of a kaiju movie.

You are complaining about energy orbs and health rechargers? That has been part of gaming since the 8 bit era. Even in tank games we got all sorts of repairs. The whole idea of those is to improve game persistance.

You think that making a game easy for TF2 to jump in and play would constitute a bad game? I would consider that a big plus. Mechs act like real soldiers? Who would you believe? Mechs are humanoid and legged to give them more human infantry like attributes.

Great mission modes. I like the ones with the missile bases especially. None of that MOBA stuff you see in CW. Just check the CW forums and you wonder how many people are liking that.

The use of speed means game TTKs are not that low. Game persistance is enhanced with respawns and repair mechanics. These represent the logistical and reinforcement principles in warfare. Speed enables shock, storm and surge tactics to be part of the game.

I don't have to group up and form a mob to win. This is where MWO really blows because the mechanics are forcing unrealistic, outdated tactics in the game. Tactics are similar to the Napoleonic Wars where soldiers line up in a mob. For that reason it does not feel like a futuristic game. Heck even in World War 2 games, we don't do mob tactics. MWO also lacks the effect of speed, surge, storm, and shock that is essential for warfare. Assaults are too slow to surge, surprise and shock, and lights don't have the firepower to kill things quickly. In Hawken, both lights and mediums are pretty fast, and they got the firepower to exploit that surge; the heavies, these are more for defense and area denial.

Somehow you fail in an important aspect of game design. Realism does not necessarily make things fun or cool. Games are a fantasy and they are supposed to be a fantasy. Somehow If you are not able to nuance and properly execute fantasy and realism in a game in measured doses, you can't have a game. Games balance arcadey and realistic elements (World of Tanks did a very good job) and I am not sure if MWO did it right. These elements, although fantastical, e.g. WoT spotting mechanism for example --- are there to create and embody essential principles of warfare in a game --- reconnaissance, logistics, reinforcement, surprise, assault. We don't have that here in MWO, except in CW.

Edited by Anjian, 18 August 2015 - 02:39 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Anjian, on 18 August 2015 - 02:05 AM, said:

Sigh. Guns are supposed to sound like guns. Don't you get it? Somehow they make 0 sense because they feel like regular soldier guns?

One sentence and you already should know you are wrong, does a regular soldiers machine gun sound like a 200m cannon? You are really not worth the time anymore if you are not even able to understand the nonsense you write. because you obviously don't have a sense for the scale on which hawken and AC happen and what this means. if you think its fine that their big guns sound like a regular soldiers gun.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Lily from animove, on 17 August 2015 - 05:36 AM, said:

also rockets twist? wow, how so? modern rockets don't even twist like this, again you are probably infected with the weird japanese genre where all those missiles make weird circular movements. And all the genres strynge non natural behavior.

Well, this is how I see it.

1. There's no air, no atmosphere in space.
2. Missiles in macross are constantly adjusting their course to home in on targets that are juking and dodging.
3. The above suggests macross missiles in space can't use stabilizer fins to turn or maneuver due to lack of atmosphere. The only option is to home in on targets using maneuvering thrusters. Using maneuvering thrusters in space and adjusting course results in spherical trajectories(similar to the movement of comets, planets, moons, asteroids, et all), rather than the more linear trajectories a person would expect from missiles fired inside an atmosphere that can use airfoils to track and aren't as prone to drifting off course from inertia.

People tend to forget mecha designs and combat in macross were drawn up by engineers in the 1980's. Its the reason for some mecha planes having wild canard and delta wing configurations and sporting design elements that were considered hot and exotic for that era from an engineering pov. Parts of it might seem counter intuitive, but there could be real world science supporting them, even if they appear unrealistic at first glance.

[Lily from animove]

I Zeratul I, on 18 August 2015 - 04:33 AM, said:

Well, this is how I see it.

1. There's no air, no atmosphere in space.
2. Missiles in macross are constantly adjusting their course to home in on targets that are juking and dodging.
3. The above suggests macross missiles in space can't use stabilizer fins to turn or maneuver due to lack of atmosphere. The only option is to home in on targets using maneuvering thrusters. Using maneuvering thrusters in space and adjusting course results in spherical trajectories(similar to the movement of comets, planets, moons, asteroids, et all), rather than the more linear trajectories a person would expect from missiles fired inside an atmosphere that can use airfoils to track and aren't as prone to drifting off course from inertia.

when a missile is having such a poor steering to have such a unstable trajectory as in the video, I doubt it would properly be able to home into anything. They look more like someone blew up a baloon and left it out of the hand.

it does actually add coolnss to the looks, btu very much as mciheal bay movies does not create immersion. And Anjian is constantly messign up the fun a game delivers with immersion. a game cna eb compelte nonsense in it pyshics and whatever to deliver a fun gameplay. But telling this is in some way related to immersion is just werid beccause its impossible.

it's like trying to say TF delivers proper tactical combat shooter immersion.

No it does not, but just because it diesn't does not mean TF is unfun, it just means that TF2 is NOT a tactical combat shooter, its just a arena comic style shooter.
But he doesn't gets the difference at all. Even a proepr fantasy setup world will follow rules to make it feel realistic. becase there are unbreakable rules like physics applying that take place unless a spell changes these rules. And hawken as well as Ac do not deliver proper mech immersion for the scale on which it happens. They dleiver good games or fun games in the way they are, but thats not much mech realistic related. In fact Hawken has a laod of mistakes in its self created world which makes asolutely no sense. You have all those epic looking city scenes, but looking closer, its just a builded arena, the way houses are crafted togethr the way where highway leads and such they make absolutely no sese. thinking for a moment that a human would have to do daily normal living in there would be weird because the map is a designed arena not having true "world lore" in mind.
At this point even MWO does it better. therefore often delivers some very unbalanced maps and locations.

Edited by Lily from animove, 18 August 2015 - 04:47 AM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Lily from animove, on 18 August 2015 - 04:38 AM, said:

when a missile is having such a poor steering to have such a unstable trajectory as in the video, I doubt it would properly be able to home into anything. They look more like someone blew up a baloon and lef *** out of the hand.

Exactly. The biggest danger in launching 60 small missiles simultaneously is the danger posed by some colliding on launch and exploding prematurely. It would be embarrassing as hell if mr/ms supa cool mecha pilot launched 100 missiles from a tightly packed shoulder pod, only to have some of the missiles collide on launch and blow themselves up.

The algorithm programmed into missile guidance/tracking component would likely be one that allowed missiles to spread out away from each other and decrease the likelihood of collisions/fatricide.

It might look silly and childish. But as wonders never cease -- there could be some real world utility in it. Amazing, I know.

edit -

Lily from animove, on 18 August 2015 - 04:38 AM, said:

it does actually add coolnss to the looks, btu very much as mciheal bay movies does not create immersion. And Anjian is constantly messign up the fun a game delivers with immersion. a game cna eb compelte nonsense in it pyshics and whatever to deliver a fun gameplay. But telling this is in some way related to immersion is just werid beccause its impossible.

it's like trying to say TF delivers proper tactical combat shooter immersion.

No it does not, but just because it diesn't does not mean TF is unfun, it just means that TF2 is NOT a tactical combat shooter, its just a arena comic style shooter.
But he doesn't gets the difference at all. Even a proepr fantasy setup world will follow rules to make it feel realistic. becase there are unbreakable rules like physics applying that take place unless a spell changes these rules. And hawken as well as Ac do not deliver proper mech immersion for the scale on which it happens. They dleiver good games or fun games in the way they are, but thats not much mech realistic related. In fact Hawken has a laod of mistakes in its self created world which makes asolutely no sense. You have all those epic looking city scenes, but looking closer, its just a builded arena, the way houses are crafted togethr the way where highway leads and such they make absolutely no sese. thinking for a moment that a human would have to do daily normal living in there would be weird because the map is a designed arena not having true "world lore" in mind.
At this point even MWO does it better. therefore often delivers some very unbalanced maps and locations.

I've never played TF, AC, Hawken or any of those titles and know nothing about them.

In scifi, people typically cite structural integrity fields, inertial compensators and other vaporware tech as being the means to mitigate realism posed by characters tanking more G forces than they should humanly be able to sustain.

I know absolutely nothing about that stuff, also.

It is possible that a large percentage of scifi exposition and technology are just plot devices designed to control the setting and terms of engagements. AI and tracking technology in BT are deliberate lostech to allow bushido esque robot combat. It doesnt make logical sense, its just exposition drawn up in an attempt to recreate fuedal warrior eras of human history within the guise of futuristic technology.

I tend to think many mech games take a similar approach. They start from a plot element they believe is interesting or worth pursuing and design the technology to suit their context, rather than beginning from a technology point of view and building their plot around the status quo.

It was never necessarily meant to make rational sense, so much as it was intended to create a supa cool story for entertainment purposes, bro.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 18 August 2015 - 05:04 AM.

[Tesunie]

Anjian, on 18 August 2015 - 02:05 AM, said:

...since Battletech comes from Robotech which comes from Veritech in Macross..

Besides the fact that, as a game some things are as they are for ease of game mechanics... (which I agree with. Can't get everything perfect, can we?)

I'd like to point out that BT is not Robotech, and was never related to Robotech in any way, shape or form.

The "Veritech" designs where an out of house design that BT bought from another company back when they were starting and they were actually called "Battledroids". That company also sold those same drawings/designs to another Company (Harmony Gold), who used it in their production of Macross. They did this, thinking that neither story would collide, seen as one was from Japan, and the other from America. Then, this company that sold the images to BT and RT closed shop.

Well, as the fates would have it, they did collide, but originally didn't have any problems with each other until Bandi (in cooperation with Harmony Gold) created an extended EXO Squad toy line with BT mechs in it, notably the Warhammer. It didn't get really ugly until they also released a Madcat/Timberwolf toy for sale, which was not an image that HG had. (Don't ask me why they did that, they just did.)

Fisa (BT's original company name) sued Bandi over it. They won. Then Harmony Gold sued over it, producing lots of court fees and a murky court agreements. Then, later, Harmony Gold wanted to cement their "victory" by bringing it to a Japan court. Sadly, this did not work out for them, as they were told that they didn't own the images, as they thought, outside of Japan and that they could not export anything besides the original story and items related to it to America. This is why you have not seen the original Veritechs in newer series or toys, and why you really haven't seen newer series of Robotech being released either.


So no. Robotech and Battletech are not related in any way. They are two separate entities that, to be frank, got screwed over by one greedy company that wanted to sell the same thing twice, to two different stories. That is the only reason that some images are shared.

If you honestly wanted to understand BT better, I would suggest you read the books. They provide a much better depiction of how BT is suppose to feel, look, and sound rather than a video game.

[Anjian]

I Zeratul I, on 18 August 2015 - 04:33 AM, said:

Well, this is how I see it.

1. There's no air, no atmosphere in space.
2. Missiles in macross are constantly adjusting their course to home in on targets that are juking and dodging.
3. The above suggests macross missiles in space can't use stabilizer fins to turn or maneuver due to lack of atmosphere. The only option is to home in on targets using maneuvering thrusters. Using maneuvering thrusters in space and adjusting course results in spherical trajectories(similar to the movement of comets, planets, moons, asteroids, et all), rather than the more linear trajectories a person would expect from missiles fired inside an atmosphere that can use airfoils to track and aren't as prone to drifting off course from inertia.

People tend to forget mecha designs and combat in macross were drawn up by engineers in the 1980's. Its the reason for some mecha planes having wild canard and delta wing configurations and sporting design elements that were considered hot and exotic for that era from an engineering pov. Parts of it might seem counter intuitive, but there could be real world science supporting them, even if they appear unrealistic at first glance.

Missiles have been using thrust vectoring technologies for years, and in fact missiles with thrust vectoring technologies have long been deployed. NASA calls it gimbled thrust.





There are also aircraft that used thrust vectoring and they pull some really weird maneuvers.




The V-2 rocket actually has some form of thrust vectoring, so did ICBMs and delivery rockets includiung the Saturn V. While fins are used for stabilization in the atmosphere, at the upper atmosphere, thrust vectoring is used for control.

AAMs like the AIM-9X use thrust vectoring, as well as a variety of SAMs, ballistic missiles, and even antitank missiles.


Also, the first Macross was drew up when the F-14 Tomcat was the hot fighter of the day. Hence you see a lot of variable sweep wings. But later series of Macross tend to derive their fighter forms from newer generation of fighters like F-22 stealth fighters.

Edited by Anjian, 18 August 2015 - 06:52 PM.

[Anjian]

Lily from animove, on 18 August 2015 - 04:38 AM, said:

when a missile is having such a poor steering to have such a unstable trajectory as in the video, I doubt it would properly be able to home into anything. They look more like someone blew up a baloon and left it out of the hand.

it does actually add coolnss to the looks, btu very much as mciheal bay movies does not create immersion. And Anjian is constantly messign up the fun a game delivers with immersion. a game cna eb compelte nonsense in it pyshics and whatever to deliver a fun gameplay. But telling this is in some way related to immersion is just werid beccause its impossible.

it's like trying to say TF delivers proper tactical combat shooter immersion.

No it does not, but just because it diesn't does not mean TF is unfun, it just means that TF2 is NOT a tactical combat shooter, its just a arena comic style shooter.
But he doesn't gets the difference at all. Even a proepr fantasy setup world will follow rules to make it feel realistic. becase there are unbreakable rules like physics applying that take place unless a spell changes these rules. And hawken as well as Ac do not deliver proper mech immersion for the scale on which it happens. They dleiver good games or fun games in the way they are, but thats not much mech realistic related. In fact Hawken has a laod of mistakes in its self created world which makes asolutely no sense. You have all those epic looking city scenes, but looking closer, its just a builded arena, the way houses are crafted togethr the way where highway leads and such they make absolutely no sese. thinking for a moment that a human would have to do daily normal living in there would be weird because the map is a designed arena not having true "world lore" in mind.
At this point even MWO does it better. therefore often delivers some very unbalanced maps and locations.

LOL. Every game has maps that you describe. Even River City has a layout that makes no sense from an engineering perspective. The reason for this is because all game maps are made for gaming purposes only.

This makes your argument totally out of context.

Actually all FPS games simulate tactical combat. Line of sight, line of fire for snipers. Advantageous use of cover, timed assaults, flanking maneuvers. Even an innocent looking game like Splatoon manages to embody these principles.

In Hawken, if there are enemy mechs hiding in the corner waiting to ambush you, throw a grenade into a corner. Players don't mob like they do in MWO. They are constantly trying to hunt, outmaneuver, outflank, ambush, and snipe each other. Maps and mechanism in MWO often defeats if not prevents flanking maneuvers. Mechs are not vulnerable to their side but by their torsos, which encourages mob like frontal attacks, as opposed to finding a weak flank spot.

I often find MWO doing a poor job in properly creating the principles of tactical combat for the purposes of satisfying some imaginary idea of how mechs battle "brawling" according to the fiction books. Even tanks rarely brawl, they blow up each other often in longer ranges. In World War 2, engagement ranges are often in excess of 500m.

Want to talk about maps? Ever seen Emerald Taiga? The trees are often blocking your view. Yet there is no way to destroy the trees in front of you and walking through them is like you are a ghost incapable of touching those trees. Talk about 'unrealistic'. Jesus Christ, if I fire lasers or PPCs on trees they are supposed to be set on fire.

Edited by Anjian, 18 August 2015 - 07:21 PM.

[Lily from animove]

Anjian, on 18 August 2015 - 07:15 PM, said:

LOL. Every game has maps that you describe. Even River City has a layout that makes no sense from an engineering perspective. The reason for this is because all game maps are made for gaming purposes only.

This makes your argument totally out of context.

Actually all FPS games simulate tactical combat. Line of sight, line of fire for snipers. Advantageous use of cover, timed assaults, flanking maneuvers. Even an innocent looking game like Splatoon manages to embody these principles.

In Hawken, if there are enemy mechs hiding in the corner waiting to ambush you, throw a grenade into a corner. Players don't mob like they do in MWO. They are constantly trying to hunt, outmaneuver, outflank, ambush, and snipe each other. Maps and mechanism in MWO often defeats if not prevents flanking maneuvers. Mechs are not vulnerable to their side but by their torsos, which encourages mob like frontal attacks, as opposed to finding a weak flank spot.

I often find MWO doing a poor job in properly creating the principles of tactical combat for the purposes of satisfying some imaginary idea of how mechs battle "brawling" according to the fiction books. Even tanks rarely brawl, they blow up each other often in longer ranges. In World War 2, engagement ranges are often in excess of 500m.

Want to talk about maps? Ever seen Emerald Taiga? The trees are often blocking your view. Yet there is no way to destroy the trees in front of you and walking through them is like you are a ghost incapable of touching those trees. Talk about 'unrealistic'. Jesus Christ, if I fire lasers or PPCs on trees they are supposed to be set on fire.

You will always have minor flaws, And some destructiblae, non destruyctible things are more due to technical limitations. But Hawken just has things thrown together after someone designed the layout of the arena..

just go and look through your hawken maps, play in the city, there are "tube like things" laying across the street knee high, neither traffic nor people could use that street. At many playces the street has sidewalks so high a normal human would kind have to climb on them to get over the street at al because they also would be knee high. Doors are too small, if you compare their heigtht in relation to the mech and the engineers in the garage. The highway upwards is so steep, rarely any regular traffic could use it nor could people properly walk up there. Desite it ending in a nonsense area. There is a building having a door, which is directly covered by a lamp post, and many many other things are so in the basic core not even slightly fitting together. MWO maps are way bette, they try at leats to look not completely nonsense. Jst go into haakwn walk around in those cities and have a look at details, smaller ones and even bigger ones. No one actually cared about "makes it sense that this is here" in hawken. That is very obvious when you closer at the map details.


You don't have a good sense for realism, and not even a good eye for details in your surrounding.

[Anjian]

Lily from animove, on 19 August 2015 - 01:17 AM, said:

You will always have minor flaws, And some destructiblae, non destruyctible things are more due to technical limitations. But Hawken just has things thrown together after someone designed the layout of the arena..

just go and look through your hawken maps, play in the city, there are "tube like things" laying across the street knee high, neither traffic nor people could use that street. At many playces the street has sidewalks so high a normal human would kind have to climb on them to get over the street at al because they also would be knee high. Doors are too small, if you compare their heigtht in relation to the mech and the engineers in the garage. The highway upwards is so steep, rarely any regular traffic could use it nor could people properly walk up there. Desite it ending in a nonsense area. There is a building having a door, which is directly covered by a lamp post, and many many other things are so in the basic core not even slightly fitting together. MWO maps are way bette, they try at leats to look not completely nonsense. Jst go into haakwn walk around in those cities and have a look at details, smaller ones and even bigger ones. No one actually cared about "makes it sense that this is here" in hawken. That is very obvious when you closer at the map details.


You don't have a good sense for realism, and not even a good eye for details in your surrounding.

Realism? You are a joke. I would say that without actual measurement and discrete numbers, you cannot say for certain if said and said are too big or too small for a human. You simply lack any objective standard to base this upon. You just lack any objective standard at all.

You say people can't go through them, and yet mechs can. LOL.

The city happens to be a slum, made for the lower classes. Tubes running around can be make shift plumbing and sewage pipes, or simply pipes made to connect to the industrial and upper class areas, and the lower class areas simply grew around them. Having been to some of the slummier areas in Asian cities, the way that city map looks is not inconsistent to my experience.

Edited by Anjian, 19 August 2015 - 10:50 PM.

[Anjian]

I Zeratul I, on 18 August 2015 - 04:51 AM, said:

Exactly. The biggest danger in launching 60 small missiles simultaneously is the danger posed by some colliding on launch and exploding prematurely. It would be embarrassing as hell if mr/ms supa cool mecha pilot launched 100 missiles from a tightly packed shoulder pod, only to have some of the missiles collide on launch and blow themselves up.

The algorithm programmed into missile guidance/tracking component would likely be one that allowed missiles to spread out away from each other and decrease the likelihood of collisions/fatricide.

It might look silly and childish. But as wonders never cease -- there could be some real world utility in it. Amazing, I know.

If missiles have to be rapid fired, missiles would have to rippled fired, the next missile is ignited as soon as the last one has left the launcher.

Missile firing in most anime mecha I have seen tends to be ripple fired.

The way LRM missiles are fired in MWO's IS mechs, are in fact wrong. Yet the way LRM missiles are fired in the same game's Clan mechs, are right. SRMs and Streak Missiles are also wrong in both counts, except in a few instances where the SRMs and Streaks are launched through a single tube, like in one Highlander and Trebuchet variant.

If missiles have to be launched simultaneously, they would not shoot forward, but initially scattering at all directions at once to prevent collission, then the guidance system sets in and they home to the target. That is actually what you see in Macross.

The reason for rapid firing missiles is that it greatly increases the percentage of hit, considering the target would do evasive maneuvers, decoys and antimissile gunnery systems. If the first missile is intercepted or evaded, the next missile has a higher percentage of hitting, and even if that is intercepted, decoyed or evaded, the next missile behind that will still have an even higher percentage of hitting.

To prevent the missiles from colliding each other, they cannot rely on the missile's internal guidance, algorithms, sensors and processing power. They rely on whoever is launching the missiles (ship, plane, or hypothetical mech). The base platform would have the radar that keeps track of each missile, has unique datalink channels for each missile, and the fire control system that has a computer with enough processing power to quickly resolve the algorithms and the data coming from the radar. Each missile will have a datalink to the FCR. The FCR then tells each individual missile how they will fly, and presets the course with factors such as anticipating target leading, which greatly increases the chance of a kill. The FCR then guides the missles separately until the target is within the "kill basket" of the missile's sensors, in which stage, the missile goes terminal and autonomously homing.

Edited by Anjian, 19 August 2015 - 11:11 PM.

[Triordinant]

I Zeratul I, on 10 August 2015 - 02:43 AM, said:

Alrite. If its not impressive, give me names of games that are impressive, please.

I'm hoping this will be impressive:

[Lily from animove]

Anjian, on 19 August 2015 - 10:49 PM, said:

Realism? You are a joke. I would say that without actual measurement and discrete numbers, you cannot say for certain if said and said are too big or too small for a human. You simply lack any objective standard to base this upon. You just lack any objective standard at all.

You say people can't go through them, and yet mechs can. LOL.

The city happens to be a slum, made for the lower classes. Tubes running around can be make shift plumbing and sewage pipes, or simply pipes made to connect to the industrial and upper class areas, and the lower class areas simply grew around them. Having been to some of the slummier areas in Asian cities, the way that city map looks is not inconsistent to my experience.

Lol, you talk nonsense I forgot, slum people buil doors right behind lampposts, and they build nonsense highways, ROFL.
And the objective standard is there, because huamns are shown in the hawken garage. it just shows again you eitehr never played hawken or you can not even see the Engineers in that garage (which leads again to your blindness for details).

Edited by Lily from animove, 20 August 2015 - 01:16 AM.

[Anjian]

Lily from animove, on 20 August 2015 - 01:15 AM, said:

Lol, you talk nonsense I forgot, slum people buil doors right behind lampposts, and they build nonsense highways, ROFL.
And the objective standard is there, because huamns are shown in the hawken garage. it just shows again you eitehr never played hawken or you can not even see the Engineers in that garage (which leads again to your blindness for details).

Really? How is the highway in Hawken nonsense? Do you actually have some form of objective measurement like a ruler? Your word cannot be taken for it. The highways in River City are even more of a nonsense considering they don't lead to anywhere meaningful and there seems to be many planes that don't seem to be connected by roads, as well as overpasses that seem a bit too low.

What a major hypocrite you are. Hyping about realism when 100 ton mechs don't sink in the mud in Viridian Bog, somehow they magically float all over that water where giant worms pop their head once in a while. Heck mechs don't even leave footprints that suggest their 100 tonnage. Or what about being able to hold several hundred missiles but only a 100 plus ballistic shells? Or what about being able to store ammunition inside the legs and yet able to replenish guns in the arms? If they fire lasers and PPCs somehow the trees don't burn. Or why the **** mechs stand up like zombies while fighting?