30 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Nightmare1, on 05 October 2015 - 07:36 AM, said:

The Locust was one of the best designed Mechs in the game in terms of scaling and cosmetics. I think it's also one of the most fun to pilot!

I like my MarioKart. I suck in it, and die horribly, but it's fun for those 30 seconds before it goes splat!

[Dino Might]

Locust eats Urbies for a mid-morning snack. That's right, it doesn't even rate breakfast, where a much larger meal of Hellbringer or Dire Wolf is desired for replenishing nutrient stores over the nighttime fast.

Urbies to a Locust are like bite-size Milky Ways. You need to pop about a dozen of them to really feel satisfied.

[Koniving]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 October 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

It's the perfect size. All other 'Mechs are just too damn huge.

Pretty much.

Koniving, on 08 June 2016 - 02:53 AM, said:

"Locust pilots are the weirdest."


In the Battletech universe, where over 70% of all mechs in the universe are Light and Medium...
Everyone still thinks Locust pilots are crazy.
----
Edit:
To pre-empt any confusion:
Don't use this as a 'scaled' image, since it clearly isn't. I imagine the Locust was 'added' into the image after the background was made using 80s to early 90s computer tech. Also the Locust, while considered an exceptionally tall and lanky mech in Battletech, has never been depicted as taller than 10 meters and often a bit shorter than this.

The Locust in MWO is 9.3-9.5 meters tall. (Making it one of the few mechs PGI has close to source, even if this one seems fatter; I also believe they have the Urbanmech pretty close, too.)

(This comment is from a purist standpoint)...
Given the removal of the pelvis and setting it so that the arms are built as hubcaps to the hip joints, scaling it up to about 10 meters tall would still give it roughly the same surface area, if perhaps even a bit less while still allowing it to have the height and difficulty to hit its torsos that are expected of a Locust.
(And in place of torso twisting, the arms have always been depicted as being able to aim up/down/left/right and the turret has also been depicted as having very good flexibility as well.)

Though purism will never work, since MWO has never kept anything pure from the source material.

[Hit the Deck]

Koniving, on 08 June 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

...
Though purism will never work, since MWO has never kept anything pure from the source material.

Well, BT or the TT game doesn't really translate well into a "competitive e-sport". A turn-based isometric squad based game on the other hand....

[Koniving]

Hit the Deck, on 08 June 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

Well, BT or the TT game doesn't really translate well into a "competitive e-sport". A turn-based isometric squad based game on the other hand....

TT straight, no.
TT plus lore, realizing that Battletech openly states that the board game is a "Summarized Abstraction of events where each turn is 10 seconds."

Given that a specified time is given, plus lore, plus we know that an AC/20 delivers a total of 20 damage -- which includes Aiming, Firing, Heating/Cooling and Reloading... and that "Some" AC/20s (not getting into any other kind yet) can fire at double the rate at an extreme risk of jamming permanently... and that AC/20 is a loose classification of weapon intended to deliver approximately (as in some variants fall short and some exceed) 20 damage under normal conditions or approximately 40 damage under high stress conditions, with variant calibers ranging from 80mm to 203mm, and that the single example of a 203mm (U)AC/20 fires twice in standard mode to get "slightly less than the full rating of damage" meaning it falls short of 20 damage in exchange for that heavy front load of damage delivery. Meanwhile some of the smaller, more DPS oriented variants can exceed their stated damage classification provided you can hit with all of its fire. AC/20s, like all ACs, have a range of over 2 kilometers, however due to recoil, movement factors of both the user and the target and other factors a more realistic expected accurate range for the typical pilot is approximately 270 meters (again another variable depending on the weapon variant and mech itself).

That's scarcely even a complete list of information on just one weapon system.
My point is that there is a LOT to extrapolate to create a Battletech experience in real time.
And notice, up to 40 damage in 10 seconds for AC/20, UAC/20 and LB-20X.
Not 60 in 8 seconds like MWO unquirked AC/20, not 100 like quirked AC/20, not 120 like Clan UAC/20.
Already no need for double armor and double structure+Quirks or "deal with alpha strikes"; it's already dealt with because damage is over time as it was always meant to be. Tabletop by itself suffers horrendous Pinpoint FLD per weapon. PP FLD that even the Tech Manual expressly states ONLY exists to expedite the ease of simulation information processing. In other words as a mercy to dice rollers so that a 10 second move doesn't take an hour to resolve.

Competitive E-sport? Pretty low priority; but even that can be done provided good balance and good incomparable choices (prefer this version of a weapon which isn't readily available for use all the time but hits hard when it is... or this weapon which can fire any time with no down time, but is heavily DPS oriented).

[Hit the Deck]

Koniving, on 08 June 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

That's scarcely even a complete list of information on just one weapon system.
My point is that there is a LOT to extrapolate to create a Battletech experience in real time.
And notice, up to 40 damage in 10 seconds for AC/20, UAC/20 and LB-20X.
Not 60 in 8 seconds like MWO unquirked AC/20, not 100 like quirked AC/20, not 120 like Clan UAC/20.
Already no need for double armor and double structure+Quirks or "deal with alpha strikes"; it's already dealt with because damage is over time as it was always meant to be. Tabletop by itself suffers horrendous Pinpoint FLD per weapon. PP FLD that even the Tech Manual expressly states ONLY exists to expedite the ease of simulation information processing. In other words as a mercy to dice rollers so that a 10 second move doesn't take an hour to resolve.

You are right, but that's just for weapons and armor. There are a lot of other in-battle mechanics which a TT player like you must know very well. These mechanics like climbing can't be realistically implemented into an first person MW game. We can't even agree if a "Mech should be able to lift its arms! There's also the issue of asymmetric balance between the Clan vs IS.

In a turn-based computer game, almost everything could be simulated as you wish so what HBS is currently doing, makes the most sense. If all else fails, they can just make a 3D MegaMek with pretty little 'Mechs

[Koniving]

Hit the Deck, on 08 June 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

You are right, but that's just for weapons and armor. There are a lot of other in-battle mechanics which a TT player like you must know very well. These mechanics like climbing can't be realistically implemented into an first person MW game. We can't even agree if a "Mech should be able to lift its arms! There's also the issue of asymmetric balance between the Clan vs IS.

In a turn-based computer game, almost everything could be simulated as you wish so what HBS is currently doing, makes the most sense. If all else fails, they can just make a 3D MegaMek with pretty little 'Mechs

Fair, quite fair. But even at just the weapons the improvements to MWO would be substantial; add in reverse kinetics
and movement mechanics that work with these principles to get something akin to Battlefield vehicle physics and War Thunder.
So we have this in MWO.


As well as mech tilting and environmental movement effects affecting mech aiming (i.e. a sudden upward slope causes aim to tilt upward unexpectedly).

We don't need every aspect, but the closer to a sim it gets the more unique MWO will be and instead of being the generic "high customization shooter" it is now it would be something that other games should strive for; it would be able to draw audiences from tank sims and increase its numbers.

Far as arm-raising. I already have how to do this mechanically.
First, this would require 2 keys.
Head Left and Head Right.
In pressing this, the arms will lift high to aim toward one side or the other, based on where the 'o' crosshair aims.
So.

Neutral position.
Press Q for example. Cockpit [Head] rotates left without moving torso (if possible otherwise pilot will just look left out window).

Arms will move to aim if they can, once out of movement range of the opposing arm it will return to a neutral position.
Press E for example. Head [cockpit] rotates right.

Arms right. In this case, the left arm can't reach or doesn't have the actuators (functioning or otherwise) to do so.

So much can be done and it isn't terribly difficult.
It's just whether or not they want to, whether they can afford it, etc.

[Cybrid 0x0t2md2w]

@Tennex

You, I like you for that locust van image.
Maybe Is hould get a huggin...too..

[Hit the Deck]

Koniving, on 08 June 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

We don't need every aspect, but the closer to a sim it gets the more unique MWO will be and instead of being the generic "high customization shooter" it is now it would be something that other games should strive for; it would be able to draw audiences from tank sims and increase its numbers.

I agree that what you said makes quite a convincing argument to create a MechWarrior (first person BT) game. Still, there are issues like weapon mounts location, 'Mech shapes, or hitbox distribution which don't exist in the source material but become a major one here since this is a first person shooter (wish that it could be more sim-like). This could make a 'Mech potentially different from what it's supposed to be like depicted on the lore.

Then there's the issue of the inherent asymmetric balance. That needs to be taken care of in the next MW game. Making it 1:1 proves to be difficult and leads to a not so satisfying result as is being demonstrated here.

[Koniving]

Hit the Deck, on 08 June 2016 - 05:51 PM, said:

I agree that what you said makes quite a convincing argument to create a MechWarrior (first person BT) game. Still, there are issues like weapon mounts location, 'Mech shapes, or hitbox distribution which don't exist in the source material but become a major one here since this is a first person shooter (wish that it could be more sim-like). This could make a 'Mech potentially different from what it's supposed to be like depicted on the lore.

Then there's the issue of the inherent asymmetric balance. That needs to be taken care of in the next MW game. Making it 1:1 proves to be difficult and leads to a not so satisfying result as is being demonstrated here.

Agreed.

Yes things like hitboxes and sizes do cause issues. For hitboxes I confess my solution is a bit complex. I have noticed that mwo's method introduces a lot of potential exploits especially from huge front torsos and small back torsos, just front the armor and tank like a mech nearly twice it's size. I wouldn't have enough room or time to get into it, but let's just say armor would be divided so that though you put X armor on the left leg, it would be split between several left leg hit boxes each with its own armor/structure value. This way random leg shots won't just fry a leg, you'd have to consistently work somewhere specific. Would also allow things like exposed/protected actuators and another important thing, internal/external crit slots.

Part of unique mechs is being unique. Take an Atlas; it is explicitly said that for them, there was no internal space left, not even for a proper lrm 20 and so the D, D-dc, RS and a few other variants have a 5 tube rapid reload lrm pouch on the left hip. The K still has this despite moving the launcher inside the torso. The S2 also has the torso one done as does the C. Branching to another mech, the Hunchback is noteworthy because canonically it is so small for a medium that it's ammo cannot fit inside and is instead mounted in a drum on the left torso. For the 4sp it is mounted in a drum on the center torso. Things like this are what I mean by internal and external slots; external slots would make the additions grow on your mech.

Anyway, ideally I would have vehicles as playable with the vehicles being respawnable while mechs are one shots where you gotta choose when to use them. Infantry squads also sound good but would likely have these directed more by requests from a command reel or orders from a command console. Working out how to use Clan in the same regard but for a starting point I would have set MWO in 2800s to build mechs, then jump 25 years with each progression of the cw map after catching up to available mechs.

To further balance the non-TT elements, giving a limited selection of specific equipment and weapon variants for each mech. Strict engine selection that is loosened only on the truly needy mechs. Though scaling and other issues should handle these before released.

Of course know the graphics quality would have to drop to make sure players could play it and more importantly that processors can handle it and all other things I seek to put in.


It's great fun talking with you.

[White Bear 84]

Tennex, on 04 October 2015 - 05:18 PM, said: