59 replies to this topic

[Colaessus]

It is not a simulator because mechs do not exist.

Can not simulate non existing things. Considering all the technology is from people that have no title in the studies.

[Gorith]

Sorry OP if they make this super fast paced and simple (aka hawken) it will make most of the current followers leave. with the market as saturated as it is in F2P games they cannot afford to just appeal to the broad and make it similar to other games.

look at MOBAs as a perfect example of this happening right now... Theres Dota2, LoL, and HoN (to a lesser extent) all the rest are almost unheard of

[Black Sunder]

As long as its not World of Mechs. But I fear it will be.

[Roh]

I don't care if people call it a sim or a freakin shoe lace. So long as it has lots of depth and tactical gameplay it's all good.

[Mchawkeye]

Amro_One, on 28 December 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

It is not a simulator because mechs do not exist.

Can not simulate non existing things. Considering all the technology is from people that have no title in the studies.

That is ridiculous. We simulate things that don't exist all the time; from prototype aircraft to cars and buildings are all built in a computer and simulated before they realised in three actual dimensions.

Of course, we don't have any way to prove our simulation accurate, but since actual lives aren't on the line here (well, social lives maybe) that's less of an issue,

[barcode]

I still think MWO could do well because of the success of WoT. WoT is a pretty slow and careful game overall, and while it's not a sim it does have that to scare away newbies.

I'm probably repeating myself and others, though.

[Yeti Fiasco]

I think MWO should cater to the lowest common denominator so it's more ACCESSIBLE

I think it would be a great mistake for piranha games to put deep, fun, challenging, competitive game mechanics into the game because it would alienate so many people.

It's much better to have a bland, wishy-washy almost-facebook style pay-for-lives game so they can break further into the housewives and single mothers demographic.

(and yes, this is a casual troll, I think piranha would be silly to do any of the above)

Edited by Yeti Fiasco, 28 December 2011 - 10:37 AM.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Amro_One, on 28 December 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

It is not a simulator because mechs do not exist.

Can not simulate non existing things. Considering all the technology is from people that have no title in the studies.

(Reads post and shakes his head. Decides to not take issue and ignores the rest of this persons ridiculous posts)

[Tannhauser Gate]

If by sim you mean not an arcade game, not an isometric strategy game, or a 3^rd person shooter then yes I want a sim.

If by sim you mean not a game that allows you to config your mechs so far beyond TRO that everyone can have uber configs / boats then yes I want a sim.

If by sim you mean an immersion in a realistic looking, realistic sounding, realistic handling, BT accurate combat game then yes I want a sim.

If all this can be balanced with action game elements to make it new user accessible but also deep and complex for vets and fans..

then yes I want a sim balanced with action elements that provide a fun immersive mech combat experience in a BT accurate world and time line.

To hell with your arcade style game, with your 3^rd person golf cart (cheating) perspective, and your anti-TRO uber configs. Get over it.

Edited by LakeDaemon, 28 December 2011 - 11:04 AM.

[SilentWolff]

According to what the devs have posted, it will be closer to a sim than an arcade FPS PoS. The fact that its first person only lends more creedence to this fact.

[GaussDragon]

Mchawkeye, on 28 December 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

That is ridiculous. We simulate things that don't exist all the time; from prototype aircraft to cars and buildings are all built in a computer and simulated before they realised in three actual dimensions.

Of course, we don't have any way to prove our simulation accurate, but since actual lives aren't on the line here (well, social lives maybe) that's less of an issue,

I will point out that these simulators model behaviour on things we already know to be true, and to look for/discover any faults in the design (based on things we know) before they get made. Simulators are meant to find errors of design, they don't necessarily discover new truths, they just expose latent truths that weren't evident. Tests are to discover new rules to add to simulators. There is no simulating things that don't exist like PPCs, because we can't simulate the behaviour of something we don't know the rules to. If we knew all the rules to PPC behaviour, then we would be able to design one, thus being grounded in reality, and therefore being a simulator. In other words; if we can simulate all future technology, it would cease to be future technology and instead become present technology. But we can't simulate FTL travel or a particle projector canon because we don't even know, absolutely, if they're feasible, until they're actually live and working, because we don't fully know how they work, because we don't know all their rules of behaviour. By virtue of semantics, there is no 'simulating the future' paradox.

Edited by GaussDragon, 28 December 2011 - 11:43 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

GaussDragon, on 28 December 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

I will point out that these simulators model behaviour on things we already know to be true, and to look for/discover any faults in the design (based on things we know) before they get made. Simulators are meant to find errors of design, they don't necessarily discover new truths, they just expose latent truths that weren't evident. Tests are to discover new rules to add to simulators. There is no simulating things that don't exist like PPCs, because we can't simulate the behaviour of something we don't know the rules to. If we knew all the rules to PPC behaviour, then we would be able to design one, thus being grounded in reality, and therefore being a simulator. In other words; if we can simulate all future technology, it would cease to be future technology and instead become present technology. But we can't simulate FTL travel or a particle projector canon because we don't even know, absolutely, if they're feasible, until they're actually live and working, because we don't fully know how they work, because we don't know all their rules of behaviour. By virtue of semantics, there is no 'simulating the future' paradox.

See now, I have been in an architects office and seen them simulating material stresses on components using not only brackets that had never existed, but materials that don't exist.
In fact, I have seen a lot of theoretical simulations.
So I would posit that a simulator can be anything the intent of which is to realistically show object interaction, at least at this level.

Don't get wrong, a lot of MWO will be guess work/straight up invented, but the intent would be to portray realism though use of physics. how accurate they are...that there is the difference between simulating a 747 and some thing more...fantastic.

[HanaYuriko]

GaussDragon, on 28 December 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

I will point out that these simulators model behaviour on things we already know to be true, and to look for/discover any faults in the design (based on things we know) before they get made. Simulators are meant to find errors of design, they don't necessarily discover new truths, they just expose latent truths that weren't evident. Tests are to discover new rules to add to simulators. There is no simulating things that don't exist like PPCs, because we can't simulate the behaviour of something we don't know the rules to. If we knew all the rules to PPC behaviour, then we would be able to design one, thus being grounded in reality, and therefore being a simulator. In other words; if we can simulate all future technology, it would cease to be future technology and instead become present technology. But we can't simulate FTL travel or a particle projector canon because we don't even know, absolutely, if they're feasible, until they're actually live and working, because we don't fully know how they work, because we don't know all their rules of behaviour. By virtue of semantics, there is no 'simulating the future' paradox.

Technically, most everything in BattleTech can be equated to real world examples. Yes, something as fantastic as the K-F Drive might be beyond even theoretical physics, but there's plenty of other examples that fit with the game's technology.

The particle projection cannon has it's function right in its name. Accelerated nuclear particles in a focused beam. Not sure if they're protons, electrons or neutrons. But the premise is what's used in atom smashing at nuclear physics labs like CERN.

The rest is known science. Ballistic science for autocannons and missiles; properties of lasers, from their output power to their chemical composition and physical properties; magnetic coil guns that are the hallmark of gauss rifles; robotics and engineering; the science of locomotion. There's even an entire set of mathematics for calculating explosive forces!

The big difference is that the game's mechanics had been drastically reduced for ease of play. Otherwise the AC20 would have an effective range that's much, much further than 300m.

So, if you know all of those factors, you can combine them to simulate a fictional construction such as a 60 ton walking tank.

[GaussDragon]

Mchawkeye, on 28 December 2011 - 12:00 PM, said:

So I would posit that a simulator can be anything the intent of which is to realistically show object interaction, at least at this level.

And again, I'd classify that as latent truth. That theoretical material is still being tested under rules as is, and as a 'simulator' would know them. The non-existent material you mentioned only exists in theoretical sense (kind of like our PPC), so again by definition, does not exist, but the difference between the two is that you can simulate that theoretical material because you have a full, or nearly full understanding of how it's going to work. The same can't be said of the PPC, so you can't simulate it. At this point, our differences are basically how stringent we define 'simulator' to be. Until they make it in real life and test it, the simulator is but a guideline for rules as they stand and I doubt any sensible company would take a theoretical material and put it straight into production without testing it first. Again, our disagreements are almost entirely semantic, so we're just splitting hairs for the fun of it lol.

HanaYuriko, on 28 December 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

Technically, most everything in BattleTech can be equated to real world examples. Yes, something as fantastic as the K-F Drive might be beyond even theoretical physics, but there's plenty of other examples that fit with the game's technology.

The particle projection cannon has it's function right in its name. Accelerated nuclear particles in a focused beam. Not sure if they're protons, electrons or neutrons. But the premise is what's used in atom smashing at nuclear physics labs like CERN.

The rest is known science. Ballistic science for autocannons and missiles; properties of lasers, from their output power to their chemical composition and physical properties; magnetic coil guns that are the hallmark of gauss rifles; robotics and engineering; the science of locomotion. There's even an entire set of mathematics for calculating explosive forces!

I agree for the most part, but I predicted this response, that's why I said, and I quote:

"...because we don't fully know how they work"

And that's why I used the example of the PPC, and not the autocannon. From a language standpoint, I just don't think it's fair to call sci-fi a simulator (as I understand it). But the whole reason we're debating this is because we don't share the same definition of simulator, that's all. I'm using it in a more restrictive sense, which is one reason why I don't like calling MW a simulator.

Edited by GaussDragon, 28 December 2011 - 01:54 PM.

[HanaYuriko]

Trying to figure out how simulation of an element isn't a simulation is giving me a headache. So I bow to your strange logic and leave this topic for a couple of migraine pills.

[Rhinehart]

LakeDaemon, on 28 December 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:

If by sim you mean not an arcade game, not an isometric strategy game, or a 3^rd person shooter then yes I want a sim.

If by sim you mean not a game that allows you to config your mechs so far beyond TRO that everyone can have uber configs / boats then yes I want a sim.

If by sim you mean an immersion in a realistic looking, realistic sounding, realistic handling, BT accurate combat game then yes I want a sim.

If all this can be balanced with action game elements to make it new user accessible but also deep and complex for vets and fans..

then yes I want a sim balanced with action elements that provide a fun immersive mech combat experience in a BT accurate world and time line.

To hell with your arcade style game, with your 3^rd person golf cart (cheating) perspective, and your anti-TRO uber configs. Get over it.

Preach it from the hilltops my Brother! This is good stuff.

[Pht]

Hikikomori, on 27 December 2011 - 07:00 AM, said:

Mass-market appeal is the core of a successful F2P game, and the publisher/developer knows it.

It is? Why do you say this?

Why than are there not billionaires who made their fortune off of F2P implementations of checkers?

Quote

I'd really enjoy exploring the depth and complexity, using my TrackIR and Joystick, reading guides and watching YouTube to understand the game better and seeing myself improve.

Casuals do not.

You know this... how?

I say, make it a great First Person Armored Combat BTU sim, and it will CONVERT "casuals" over just so they can play it.

Edited by Pht, 28 December 2011 - 04:09 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Anyway - everybody else is aiming for the "casual" market so a different tack is needed.

[Gouka]

Casual is about the worst spot this game could aim for as so many other people have said. For this game to work it will need to aim for the niche that everything Battletech has carved itself, while remaining somewhat open for any of the new blood that may be drawn into it.

[KingCobra]

I Have high hopes this game will be everything the Battletech fans TT players and the PC players want in a Mech game that said to me the more sim the better right up to the point it becomes no fun as in turn based i want a live 1:1 realtime game with the aspects of all the great Battletech lore and a never ending PVE storyline to follow.In truth from what the devs have posted it will not be the game i totally desired but it might be a start towards what i would like to see happen with the franchise more like a MW:O=MMO with real live PVE battletech storylines to follow and a never ending realtime universe to roam through and do battles on.Many of you and many others have there own visions of what this game will be and wil become and im sure the DEVS will read and see what we all would accept and play to keep the game alive.

P.S remeber to much of any one thing is not a good thing.