28 replies to this topic

[CK16]

I think one of the things MW4 did right was legging a mech, you literately drag that sucker around when you are legged, now its like your mech just seems to move slower and the destroyed leg is hardly noticeable.

[RestosIII]

CK16, on 26 November 2016 - 08:37 PM, said:

I think one of the things MW4 did right was legging a mech, you literately drag that sucker around when you are legged, now its like your mech just seems to move slower and the destroyed leg is hardly noticeable.

i'm assuming you're talking just visuals, because if you're piloting a light mech, losing a leg is one of the most agonizing things to ever happen. Especially if you're a Clan light mech that has lost a ST. You feel like you're piloting a brick that through sheer willpower decided to move to another part of the continent.

[CK16]

RestosIII, on 26 November 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

i'm assuming you're talking just visuals, because if you're piloting a light mech, losing a leg is one of the most agonizing things to ever happen. Especially if you're a Clan light mech that has lost a ST. You feel like you're piloting a brick that through sheer willpower decided to move to another part of the continent.

I meant visually yes, speed wise yes it is noticed lol.

[RAM]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 November 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

Wrong.

Yes, you are.

It is demonstrably correct: go look up the join date of someone who has never posted.

QED


RAM
ELH

[Y E O N N E]

RAM, on 27 November 2016 - 02:17 AM, said:

Yes, you are.

It is demonstrably correct: go look up the join date of someone who has never posted.

QED


RAM
ELH

Try again.

I started playing right after UI 2.0 was released, before the Locust 1E was in the game. The Locust 1E was added in the 14 April patch. My join date says 18 April. I have no reason to lie about this, so explain that one, Batman...

Edit: here we go. I'm older than I thought. I signed up on Valentines day of 2014:


Perhaps now you would like to have a rational discussion instead of being so convinced in your correctness, hm?

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 27 November 2016 - 03:24 AM.

[RAM]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 November 2016 - 02:26 AM, said:

Try again.

Perhaps now you would like to have a rational discussion instead of being so convinced in your correctness, hm?

Yes please do.

Correlation does not prove causation and neither does an unlabeled email. That said it is entirely possible that we are both correct.


RAM
ELH

[Y E O N N E]

Quote

That said it is entirely possible that we are both correct.

Only if their system had a bug and it was fixed, which we don't know either way. Even were that the case, your notion remains incorrect, because such a fix is not retroactive. My forum date remains wrong.

RAM, on 27 November 2016 - 10:18 PM, said:

Yes please do.

Irony is lost on you, it would seem.

Quote

Correlation does not prove causation

Irrelevant. We aren't trying to prove a trend, nor are we concerned with how they are different. All we are concerned with is a boolean value dependent upon there being a single case not supporting the default assumption. It does not matter how my dates are different, only that they are and the fact that they are means you are wrong.

Quote

and neither does an unlabeled email.

An unlabeled email? Now you've gone off the deep end. I fail to see how it is unlabeled in any way that would matter, for starters, and even if I show you my Gmail that tells you nothing since there is no way for you to link my profile to my Gmail account. You would just as soon label any such photo doing so equally unreliable, anyway. Removing private contact info is one thing, getting revised dates to look legitimate is beyond the level of effort I am willing to spend.

I would also point out that there would be no reason to disagree with you if I wasn't positive I had been playing longer than my profile date suggests. That would be even sillier than trying to argue with you, an individual who has time and again proven himself to be immune to reason.


You've been riding this implicit "I'm the most logical person in the forum" horse for awhile. You are, as deomnstrated by this very thread, not. That horse was thoroughly slain in our last engagement over the impact single-shot Clan auto-cannons would have on the game. Dismount it at once, the bacteria are clearly affecting you; you have departed the realm of logic and have entered the realm of the extremely paranoid.

Edit: Duplicate text.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 27 November 2016 - 11:26 PM.

[Cabusha3]

Mr3, on 26 November 2016 - 01:57 AM, said:

Hi all,

I was chatting to a friend yesterday and discussing the leg destruction issue. I remember back in the beta days when a leg was destroyed it was visibly removed from the mech in game (not just in the target information window). I vaguely remember this was done because of the extra physics load or something like that. Does anyone remember the real reason that has not found it's way into the final game or have a link to an old discussion? I've googled a bit and searched the forum but can't find the old reference.

Thanks,
3

Nope, never happened in this game. Legs always have stayed attached. MW2 had them blow off, and MW3 had one leg = instant kill

[Vellron2005]

To be honest, I'm surprised that the "destroyed" leg isn't dragging behind the mech, but visually still moves..

The mech should be "limping" not "walking slowly" with one of its legs destroyed.

But hey.. I'm just happy it matters in-game.. When speaking of visuals, MWO is the most aesthetically pleasing MW game ever.. Just think about it.. its the first to have dynamic weapons geometry..

You win some, you lose some I guess..