23 replies to this topic

[Coolant]

I love all the new info the new Mechlab is giving us like the info in the engine for example. But, am I missing actual numerical values for Turn Rate and ACC/DEC? Or is it still just the graph? If just the graph I wish PGI would give us the values. There are a lot of mechs alike and it might tip the scale on one mech over another. Some of us mechlab labcoats enjoy even the slightest tweak we can find.

[Deathlike]

The values are still there on the hover-over on each mech.

[Coolant]

Deathlike, on 01 September 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:

The values are still there on the hover-over on each mech.

not seeing actual number values for Acc/Dec/Turn Rate. I see numbers for Pitch, Yaw, Arms, and for the engine Speed, Reverse, Torso Yaw and Pitch.

Edited by Coolant, 01 September 2015 - 02:04 PM.

[Deathlike]

Coolant, on 01 September 2015 - 02:03 PM, said:

not seeing actual number values for Acc/Dec/Turn Rate. I see numbers for Pitch, Yaw, Arms, and for the engine Speed, Reverse, Torso Yaw and Pitch.

I don't think such values were ever in the lab. I suggest smurfy's for that, and I believe when you hover over the engine... some of the details "might" be there (there is some stuff listed, but not sure of a complete set).

You have to rely on the graphs for accel+decel honestly.

They are the same for all unquirked mechs (or mechs that haven't had those values quirked) that run @ the same top speed.

Edited by Deathlike, 01 September 2015 - 02:53 PM.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 01 September 2015 - 02:51 PM, said:

I don't think such values were ever in the lab. I suggest smurfy's for that, and I believe when you hover over the engine... some of the details "might" be there (there is some stuff listed, but not sure of a complete set).

I don't think that even Papa Smurfys lists acceleration and deceleration values?

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 01 September 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

I don't think that even Papa Smurfys lists acceleration and deceleration values?

It doesn't.

The graphs don't really do this justice, but they look pretty linear though (well, you'd have to piece/paste two linear equations together though).

Edited by Deathlike, 01 September 2015 - 02:54 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

Deathlike, on 01 September 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

It doesn't.

The graphs don't really do this justice, but they look pretty linear though (well, you'd have to piece/paste two linear equations together though).

Without a mouse over value on the graphs that tell you the values at a certain point, they really are useless.

Type x*3 into google and play around with the graph. Something like that would be far more useful

[Khobai]

the graphs are totally useless. they waste a lot of space and that space could be used to show information that actually matters

Like they could use that space to show way more important things like what the size archetype the mech is for hill climbing and other things like that. Getting stuck on rocks is the difference between life and death and the game doesnt even tell you if your mech is a huge derpaderp or not.

And they could show a ragdoll diagram of the mech with the exact locations of all the hardpoints. Just telling you how many of each hardpoint a mech has isnt nearly as useful as showing you WHERE those hardpoints are

Edited by Khobai, 01 September 2015 - 04:38 PM.

[Deathlike]

Troutmonkey, on 01 September 2015 - 04:29 PM, said:

Without a mouse over value on the graphs that tell you the values at a certain point, they really are useless.

It's not entirely useless... it's just ineffective display of data. For instance, changing the reverse speed does actually change the datapoints on the graphs.

[Troutmonkey]

Khobai, on 01 September 2015 - 04:31 PM, said:

And they could show a ragdoll diagram of the mech with the exact locations of all the hardpoints. Just telling you how many of each hardpoint a mech has isnt nearly as useful as showing you WHERE those hardpoints are

[Deathlike]

Troutmonkey, on 01 September 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

Well, they already have a newer one these days (although, I forget if the Hoverover affects it).

[Troutmonkey]

Deathlike, on 01 September 2015 - 06:34 PM, said:

Well, they already have a newer one these days (although, I forget if the Hoverover affects it).

No where near as good, especially with the purple font

[Deathlike]

Troutmonkey, on 01 September 2015 - 07:17 PM, said:

No where near as good, especially with the purple font

I would've been happy had that just kept the basic Red - Energy, Green - Missile, and Yellow - Ballistic color scheme used in MW4... but MWO is a special snowflake.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 01 September 2015 - 07:20 PM, said:

I would've been happy had that just kept the basic Red - Energy, Green - Missile, and Yellow - Ballistic color scheme used in MW4... but MWO is a special snowflake.

I've always wondered why the three main weapon types didn't use the "primary colors" of the color wheel (RYB). It would seem more intuitive that way, since red/yellow/blue are the most basic colors from which the others are derived, while energy/missile/ballistics are the three families of guns we choose from in MW.

Ballistics make sense as yellow because it's sorta like the color of bullet casings. Blue might be weird for missiles outside of Macross, so I guess red for them because that could represent the flame trailing out of the back of the missiles. That leaves blue for pewpew weapons, which works alright because electricity/energy is often imagined as being a bluish color...

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 01 September 2015 - 07:24 PM, said:

I've always wondered why the three main weapon types didn't use the "primary colors" of the color wheel (RYB). It would seem more intuitive that way, since red/yellow/blue are the most basic colors from which the others are derived, while energy/missile/ballistics are the three families of guns we choose from in MW.

Ballistics make sense as yellow because it's sorta like the color of bullet casings. Blue might be weird for missiles outside of Macross, so I guess red for them because that could represent the flame trailing out of the back of the missiles. That leaves blue for pewpew weapons, which works alright because electricity/energy is often imagined as being a bluish color...

There's that colorblind thing, but whatever.

I dunno, I like simple-easy to read colors.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 01 September 2015 - 07:27 PM, said:

There's that colorblind thing, but whatever.

I dunno, I like simple-easy to read colors.

For colorblind peeps, I guess they could always add a colorblind mode like a few games have...

I don't see how the primary colors would be hard to read, though. In some ways they might be easier, because sometimes yellow and green can look similar if they have certain shades. I had this issue in MW4 Mercs often because they used a really light green for missile hardpoints...

Edited by FupDup, 01 September 2015 - 07:28 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 01 September 2015 - 07:24 PM, said:

I've always wondered why the three main weapon types didn't use the "primary colors" of the color wheel (RYB). It would seem more intuitive that way, since red/yellow/blue are the most basic colors from which the others are derived, while energy/missile/ballistics are the three families of guns we choose from in MW.

Ballistics make sense as yellow because it's sorta like the color of bullet casings. Blue might be weird for missiles outside of Macross, so I guess red for them because that could represent the flame trailing out of the back of the missiles. That leaves blue for pewpew weapons, which works alright because electricity/energy is often imagined as being a bluish color...

Honestly, IS lasers should be red, yellow, and blue while Clan lasers ought to be amber, green, and violet.

Why?

Because the energy contained in the cross-section of a laser beam increases dramatically with an increase in frequency/decrease in wavelength.

Though if we want to be extra special in our attention to detail, lasers doing the same damage per tick should be the same color.

Edit: ninja'd.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 01 September 2015 - 07:32 PM.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 September 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

Honestly, IS lasers should be red, yellow, and blue while Clan lasers ought to be amber, green, and violet.

Why?

Because the energy contained in the cross-section of a laser beam increases dramatically with an increase in frequency/decrease in wavelength.

Though if we want to be extra special in our attention to detail, lasers doing the same damage per tick should be the same color.

Edit: ninja'd.

I was referring to the hardpoint colors in the mechlab, not the in-game weapon colors.

[Khobai]

Quote

Honestly, IS lasers should be red, yellow, and blue while Clan lasers ought to be amber, green, and violet.

Why?

Because the energy contained in the cross-section of a laser beam increases dramatically with an increase in frequency/decrease in wavelength.

Nah. Lasers should be invisible. Because weaponized lasers are high energy and in the same part of the spectrum as x-rays which arnt in the visible spectrum of light. Lookup Boeings advanced tactical laser on youtube.

If you tried to apply real world logic youd end up with a game no one wants to play. Who wants to play a game where youre firing invisible silent lasers at eachother. Rainbow lasers look way cooler.

There does need to be some differentiation between regular and ER lasers though.

I think regular lasers and pulse lasers should be red (SL/SPL), green (ML/MPL), and blue (LL/LPL)

While the ER lasers, ER pulse, and X-pulse should be color shifted to orange (ERSL), yellow (ERML), and purple (ERLL)

That way you can tell exactly whats being fired at you.

Edited by Khobai, 01 September 2015 - 07:51 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 01 September 2015 - 07:43 PM, said:

Nah. Lasers should be invisible. Because weaponized lasers are high energy and in the same part of the spectrum as x-rays which arnt in the visible spectrum of light. Theyre also silent.

See boeings advanced tactical laser.

INDIRECT LASER VOMIT BUFF
MUST NOT ALLOW