47 replies to this topic

[Undead]

Agree that MW2 had it mostly right. I did prefer the PPC in MW4 though. It should be a lightning-fast beam, not a slow moving ball. It moved so slow it was totally ineffective at range against anything but the AI. You could literally just turn out of the way to avoid it.

[Trogusaur]

I really liked the majority of MW2's animations, mostly because they were engaging and made you really want to hit the target again, just to watch the cool, pixelated explosions. I liked the pew pew Small pulse of all weapons the most, and the dreaded MA also did a great job reviving the idea of a true "pulse". I also really liked the LRMs and Gauss because they both had scare factor. Watching a huge line of individual missles repetitively connect with that stupid sideswiping Nova was a treat in itself, but imagine the boom that would come out of MWO's engine! And the MW2 Gauss showed exactly what a real Gauss cannon is about: big, fatty magnets propelling a big, fatty chunk of metal into oblivion at ludicrous speed. Not a cute, swirly cloud or a misty green PPC.

MW4's pulse lasers seemed kind of shoddy to me, especially after seeing two different (and better) representations of the pulse idea. The GR made me want to throw something at the creators, asking them if they even know who Carl Friedrich Gauss is. The LRM climbing effect was spot on, but never hit anything, and they clustered into fives?? SRMs were perfect, my only wish is that canon allowed for bigger packs of missles. I don't quite understand why people seem to like MW3's big floating mass migrate to their target, I think it's more cinematic to have a longer stream of individual missles. Off topic from the BT universe, Armored Core did a great job with the missle system, especially in that each type had it's own designated range and weapon spread. Firing from a distance at a group of unsuspecting Normals? Give em a whole wave of climbing missles. Ambushed by another NEXT? Scatters or VTFs will do nicely.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 05 January 2012 - 08:41 PM.

[Volume]

Depressed that the poll doesn't have MW:LL options, which are vastly superior to all predecessors in most cases.

I would prefer MW:LL pulse lasers, MW3 SRM, some kind of new-not-used-before-in-MW LRM (none of the games really got them right), MW4 Gauss Rifles (with much improved effect, think Shadow Warrior or Quake2/3/4 Railgun or something), MW3 Autocannons (made the most sense really, but needs much bigger sound. Think a tank Autocannon like from reality).

Lasers I'm not 100% sure about but maybe they should be sort of beam laser-hold-on-target (like a MW3 pulse laser)

[Applejack]

Where's the "Exactly Like MechWarrior: Living Legends" option?

Except for Clan LRMs, that game did it right.

Edited by Applejack, 06 January 2012 - 02:05 AM.

[Punk KMSD]

Stone, on 05 January 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

I like how the polls do not have anything from MWLL X_x


maybe branch out from MW eh? there were a few other projects that did it better in my opinion!

^What Stone said. I liked how ballistics worked in MPBT...along with pretty much everything else, sans L/SRMs...which went through the terrain...which was because of how damage was calculated....or rather WHEN damage was calculated.

Also, really, REALLY, hoping LRMS are not indirect fire weapons. You pretty much make them useless. I've gone through and played every MW game that will run on this machine, MW1 - 4, and tried to hit other Mechs with indirect LRM fire....not easy at all to do at max range. Of course my role in combat has always been fire support so...I'm abit bias here...and off topic...yeash.

[Tifalia]

Personally speaking, I think MechWarrior 3 did the best job when it came to the pulse lasers and regular lasers, even if it wasn't strictly in line with the canon. As well as the ability to launch your missles by scrolling the targeting reticule, as opposed to line-of-sight. It just seemed a little more realistic for me, given that it is set 1,000 years in the future, such technological advancements in weapons would be more practical than by today's standards.

[Armored Yokai]

i only use mechwarrior official products not some modded game

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

MWLL have the best weapon effects so far. however i did like the weapon effects in the 2009 MW trailer, btw did any one notice the MW2 sound effects used in the trailer?

[Oreic]

Pulse Lasers and Lasers; I like MW3 Lasers but as far as Pulse lasers I want something new and none of that MW4 stuff with the lack of true lasers and their tendency to travel at the speed of light and in doing so appearing to reach there destination "instantly" I hated how in MW4 the Pulse lasers weren't anything like real lasers at all, although in reality you can't even see a laser unless you see it hitting something such as particles in the air.

PPCs; I really liked the 2009 trailer interpretation. Just needs to sound like thunder now like the books describe. (or am I thinking about another weapon here?)

Auto Cannon; I preferred MW3 Burst Kinda made it feel like a cannon and an automatic weapon

Gauss; None of the games have really got these right MW3 was the closet but MW4...I can't believe they called those Gauss Rifles what was up with those energy rings? This has been shown on the forums several times but this is what physics have shown us in reality as to what an actual Gauss (or Rail gun) round would look like.

[Frantic Pryde]

I'm shocked that so many people liked mw3 pulse lasers. First off, they where fairly useless without boating and second of all they did not reflect canon pulse lasers at all. Pulse lasers are supposed to fire a 3shot laser spray-burst type thing, making them more likely to hit. I think mw2 was closest on that one.

[trycksh0t]

MW3 Pulse lasers, hands down. MW2 Gauss Rifles. MW3 PPCs. Autocannons...haven't made up my mind yet. MW2 Missiles, with faster launch speeds.

Frantic Pryde, on 07 January 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

I'm shocked that so many people liked mw3 pulse lasers. First off, they where fairly useless without boating and second of all they did not reflect canon pulse lasers at all. Pulse lasers are supposed to fire a 3shot laser spray-burst type thing, making them more likely to hit. I think mw2 was closest on that one.

...What? Where'd you come up with that idea about pulse lasers? Pulse lasers are functionally identical to standard lasers, they're just fired in rapid, computer controlled micro-bursts to let particles around the target area to dissipate, allowing for more energy on target (damage).

[LabMaus]

MW4's are the best

[Durant Carlyle]

Autocannon: While not the most exciting thing, MW2 ACs were the closest to canon. AC/10 fired one 10-point round. ACs shouldn't be able to spray damage around different areas of a target, unless you specifically use Cluster ammunition in an LB-X AC. In the books, ACs fire a stream of rounds, but the firing rate was such that the entire stream hit the same location on the target. If they can do that, great. If not, then one shot per trigger pull unless you're firing Ultra AC in Ultra mode. Then it's two shots per trigger pull.

Gauss Rifle: One heavy shell fired at supersonic speeds. No rings, no after-effects ... should just be a blur and that's it.

Laser: Press fire, instant hit ... assuming that aiming point is correct.

Pulse Laser: Press fire once, get two or maybe three rapid pulses of the same type as a standard laser. Again, instant hit assuming aim is correct. Multiple pulses make it easier to hit, like it's supposed to be according to the rules. None of this "hold down the trigger" crap.

Missiles: I like the ripple-fire effect leading to a constant stream of missiles. LRMs should gather themselves in groups of five when dealing damage.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 08 January 2012 - 01:16 AM.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

What I'm totally confident in is that MW3's all-at-once LRM salvos _sucked_. They looked lame, like a white fireball or so, unbelievably slow-moving and hardly avoidable because of their speed and density. They would hit all at once. And that doesn't seem to correlate with the MWO's policy about salvos rarely hitting target with all of the missiles, like in tabletop game.
I liked MW2's 1-after-1 salvos best, it looked awesome, but logic makes me vote for 5-at-a-time scheme.

It wasn't mentioned as an option, but imo the best LRM salvos were in MWLL, especially when talking about distant ground fire. 2xLRM20 salvo at maximum distance barraged the vast spaces with random missiles - truly a scene to remember))

And as for the all forms of lasers.. I understand that the game should give a player some tasty visuals, but really, WHY all those rainbow laser effects? If the game will allow smoke (in tabletop we always have plenty of smoke) why not make beams visible only in smoke, and be just some heated air distortion the rest of the time? For the sake of gameplay compromise it into something visible, comprehensible and distinct and it will look fresh among the majority of the games. Cartoonish pulses of MW4 looked childish in the worst meaning of the word, almost sick.

Edited by Duncan Jr Fischer, 08 January 2012 - 02:51 AM.

[Reno Blade]

feor, on 01 December 2011 - 06:01 PM, said:

one of the very very few thing MW4 got right

i disagree. mw4 only used a grafic with many small beams for pulselasers, not a series of small shots, like the RAC would do.
personally, i like MW3 physics the most.
the best implementation of PPC, missiles and AC physics and nearly best for lasers.
nothing is more stupid than MW4 missiles flying circles around your targets...
the MW2 autocannon was great too. you could unleash as many bullets as you wanted to quickly destroy someone, but it burns down ammo fast.

[Nowan123]

I love the MW:LL weapon effects, and the MW4 PPC was OK...

[Kargush]

For lasers, I'd like to see them the way they did it in Terminator.

The solid beams are your regular lasers (ER lasers would have either thicker beams or "last" longer), and the rapid cycling lasers on the HK units are perfect pulse-lasers.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

kargush, on 08 January 2012 - 05:07 AM, said:

For lasers, I'd like to see them the way they did it in Terminator.

The solid beams are your regular lasers (ER lasers would have either thicker beams or "last" longer), and the rapid cycling lasers on the HK units are perfect pulse-lasers.

I second that, great example)

[Battlefinger]

I think you should add options for the weapon systems used in MW:LL, as their PPC's and Gauss Rifles are by far the best I've seen yet. Heck, most of their weapon systems feel just like they should. I always missed the way MW2 handled LRM's though, they felt bigger, stronger when shot like that. I couldn't stand the visuals of MW4, even MechCommander2 appeared to do the laser effects better. I am not sure how the missiles looked in MW3, so I can't somment on that. I would be open to firing them all at once it they didn't all have completely straight paths ie. all stayed together as a tight group the whole time. Time will tell, but if the mechanics on all the weapons were exactly as they are in MW:LL, I wouldn't have any complaints.

[Strum Wealh]

Lasers and Pulse Lasers:
As strange as it may sound, I would like to see pulse lasers work as in MW4 (streams of jewel-colored bolts; several of the novels describe pulse lasers of varying sizes as firing "emerald darts") with the modification of each pulse being a separate projectile, allowing fire to be "stitched"/"walked" across a target's surface, while "normal" lasers (described in the novels as firing "ruby lances/shafts") would work in a manner similar to the MW3 pulse lasers (a longer-duration, continuous beam that delivers damage over time and could be moved around the targeted 'Mech, resulting in the damage being spread over the target's surface).

PPCs:
Often described in the novels as "cerulean beams/bolts of man-made lightning", I would like PPCs to be depicted as such - a visual effect akin to a bolt from a Tesla coil or a salvo from Quake Wars' lightning gun (or some combination thereof) and a sound effect akin to either a Tesla coil or a thunderclap.

Gauss Rifles:
Firing nickel-ferrous slugs at hyper-sonic (Mach 5+) velocities, I would expect (and like) to see Gauss Rifle salvos appear as blurry silver projectiles with a ghostly, barely-visible trail similar in styling to what was depicted in MW3 (but much shorter (no more than twice the projectile length) and gray rather than green).

Also:

Oreic, on 07 January 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

This has been shown on the forums several times but this is what physics have shown us in reality as to what an actual Gauss (or Rail gun) round would look like.

Firstly, Gauss Rifles are not railguns, they are coilguns. They may be superficially similar (both launch a projectile using electromagnetic accelerators), but they function on very different principles:

Quote

A coilgun is a type of projectile accelerator that consists of one or more coils used as electromagnets in the configuration of a synchronous linear motor which accelerate a magnetic projectile to high velocity. The name Gauss gun is sometimes used for such devices in reference to Carl Friedrich Gauss, who formulated mathematical descriptions of the magnetic effect used by magnetic accelerators.

Coilguns consist of one or more coils arranged along a barrel. The coils are switched on and off in sequence, causing the projectile to be accelerated quickly along the barrel via magnetic forces. Coilguns are distinct from railguns, which pass a large current through the projectile or sabot via sliding contacts. Coilguns and railguns also operate on different principles. The first operational coilgun was developed and patented by Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland.

In 1934 an American inventor developed a machine gun based similar in concept to the coilgun. Except for a photo in a few publications, very little is known about it.

--------------------

A railgun is an entirely electrical gun that accelerates a conductive projectile along a pair of metal rails using the same principles as the homopolar motor. Railguns use two sliding or rolling contacts that permit a large electric current to pass through the projectile. This current interacts with the strong magnetic fields generated by the rails and this accelerates the projectile. Particular characteristics are the lack of propellant (only the projectile and the electrical energy to launch it are required to be expended) and the ability to launch projectiles much faster than firearms-based technology allows.

Moreover, it should be noted that the large amount of flame in the picture represents the erosion and vaporization of a substantial amount of material from both the projectile and the rails themselves.

Quote

Massive amounts of heat are created by the electricity flowing through the rails, as well as by the friction of the projectile leaving the device. The heat created by this friction itself can cause thermal expansion of the rails and projectile, further increasing the frictional heat. This causes three main problems: melting of equipment, decreased safety of personnel, and detection by enemy forces. As briefly discussed above, the stresses involved in firing this sort of device require an extremely heat-resistant material. Otherwise the rails, barrel, and all equipment attached would melt or be irreparably damaged.

In practice the rails are, with most designs of railgun, subject to erosion due to each launch; and projectiles can be subject to some degree of ablation also, and this can limit railgun life, in some cases severely.

Coilguns have their own issues (timing of switching, ferromagnetic projectile saturation, and a few others), but melting themselves with each firing doesn't tend to be one of them. As such, coilguns (including Gauss Rifles) would not look like the photograph above during firing...

Autocannons:
I would like to see autocannon fire depicted in the same way as their real-life equivalents - each "round" that the pilot sees in the cockpit round counter represents a "clip" filled with shells, where firing a "round" empties the clip and the weapon automatically loads the next clip.
A real-life example of this clip system can be seen in the L21A1 RARDEN 30mm autocannon (the equivalent of an AC-2) used by the British Army.

I'd also like to see all of the different models of autocannon given their full canon functionality:

• Standard ACs (and, eventually, light ACs) being able to fire special munitions (flak and tracer rounds are available in 3049, with other ammo types being available later) in addition to the standard (high-explosive, armor-piercing (HEAP)) munitions.
  
• LB-X ACs being able to fire both standard (HEAP) and specialized cluster munitions (as opposed to the more common flak munitions), and being able to switch between ammo bins (one set of bins for each ammo type) via a player-toggled action.
  
• Ultra ACs (and, eventually, rotary ACs) being able to fire only standard (HEAP) munitions, but being able to adjust the weapons' rate-of-fire (with higher ROFs coming at the cost of accuracy and an increased likelihood of jamming the weapon) via a player-toggled action.
  
• Hyper-velocity ACs (if/when they become available) being able to fire only standard (HEAP) munitions, but having a longer range than the other AC types and otherwise functioning like the standard ACs (standard ROF, etc).

Missiles:
For LRMs and SRMs (and, eventually, MRMs), I would like to see them fire their missiles one-at-a-time, which would make them (especially in the case of the larger launchers, and doubly so in the case of indirect fire for LRMs) more flexible by allowing them to either focus their fire on a smaller area for greater damage to a given target, or to saturate a larger area and strike multiple targets (at the cost of less damage to any particular target).

Also, I'd like to see the various missile systems depicted as they are in the canon:

• Standard munitions for both LRMs and SRMs are guided (though, there are options for semi-guided (LRMs) and unguided/dead-fire (LRMs and SRMs) munitions instead, as well as enhanced-guidance munitions (Artemis IV FCS and Narc Missile Beacon compatible munitions, anti-radiation missiles, heat-seeking missiles, listen-kill missiles) for both LRMs and SRMs).
  
• LRMs may be fired either directly (straight line from launcher to target) or indirectly (fire upward, missiles follow a parabolic path to a targeted position), while SRMs are direct-fire only (that is, no indirect fire capability).
  
• MRMs are dead-fire/unguided only.
  
• Streak systems (both SRMs and, eventually, LRMs) incorporate an additional targeting system that prevents the weapon from being fired unless and until there is a targeting lock and the target is within the missiles' range. Normal LRM and SRM systems, by contrast, may be fired without a targeting lock.
  
• All missile-type munitions, including larger missiles like Arrow IV artillery missiles and capital-scale missiles, are vulnerable to AMS fire ("...anti-missile systems have proven highly effective in space combat, where even larger missile classes can suffer from a cloud of point-defense fire." - Tech Manual, pg. 204).
  
• Mech Mortar shells (which may be guided or semi-guided, among other options) are not vulnerable to AMS fire.

Though, all of the above (aside from the "Gauss Rifle is a railgun/coilgun" correction) is just my personal opinion/wishlist...

What the devs decide will be, will be.
Our lot as players is to wait and see.