74 replies to this topic

[VYCanis]

by itself, sure sidesteps might be of limited usefulness, but consider how much of an added dimension something like sidestepping or lateral shifting of movement relative to leg alignment at slower speeds can add when combined with classic movement. In addition to making the movements feel much more believable.
You do it all the time when you walk, btw. Things with legs don't just point their pelvis in a given direction and pump their legs along a single axis till they get there. And if mechs really worked that way, jeez, they'd never be able to do even half the stuff they are supposed to do.

diagram

http://desmond.image....jpg&res=medium

Edited by VYCanis, 09 February 2012 - 07:32 AM.

[Caballo]

Kaine Vulpayne, on 09 February 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

From the technical point of view, a machine that can only rotate its hip joints around a horizontal lateral axis (=1DOF) would most probably be unable to walk at all, at least it could not change the direction and could only walk straight forward and backward. Not to speak of the awesome motions that BattleMechs are supposed to be able of performing.

Move a leg farther than the other, and you'll get a turn, einstein.

Anyway, i gotta say i'm pretty tired of people opening posts to try to "convince" the devs this or that stupid feature should be implemented. Someone must open one with a poll with 99 questions on "Why a battlemech should or should not have curly hair" or sth that fad...

SIDESTEPS ARE TO BATTLEMECHS AS BICYCLES ARE TO FISH.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"SIDESTEPS ARE TO BATTLEMECHS AS BICYCLES ARE TO FISH."

From a person who's own Avatar states

Quote

"Mechs are mobile war machines."

sheesh

[Caballo]

MaddMaxx, on 09 February 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

From a person who's own Avatar states



sheesh

Nice point, if you consider a 100 tons machine crawling by its side at 2 km/h moving...

Now comes the part where we both discuss the real sense of that *grabs a cigarette*

EDIT: was about to like your post.

Edited by Caballo, 09 February 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Caballo, on 09 February 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Nice point, if you consider a 100 tons machine crawling by its side at 2 km/h moving...

Now comes the part where we both discuss the real sense of that *grabs a cigarette*

EDIT: was about to like your post.

I guess then I would have to ask you to define your definition of "mobile".

[Kaine Vulpayne]

Caballo, on 09 February 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Move a leg farther than the other, and you'll get a turn, einstein.

Yeah, think about it, Mr. Hawking. Or try it out yourself, just make uneven forward moves with your legs and don't twist your hip and feet joints. I'd like to see that.

The leg, that does the small movement would have to rotate around itself, while the other leg is performing its larger step. And if it can not twisht its leg either in the foot or the hip joint it would have to rotate its leg while it supports the full weight of the mech since the other leg is in the air at this time. So the the foot would scrape on the ground with the friction of 25 to 100tons on it.
That would make one crappy motion like a stupid toy and most probably make the mech fall down. This might work in the mumbojumbo "physics" of computer games, but certainly dosen't give a feeling of a sophisticated war machine that is supposed to be designed in a couple of centuries from now.


Also with your explanation imagine a mech turning while standing. It would rudder with the one leg while turning on the other? That's certainly not how it is described or seen in many of the images. And it would quite look like a retarded machi

[Caballo]

MaddMaxx, on 09 February 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

I guess then I would have to ask you to define your definition of "mobile".

Clearly not this:





Not talking about the imposibility of seeing a catapult moving the legs that way, whatever kaine insist.

Edited by Caballo, 09 February 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[DaZur]

Caballo, on 09 February 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Move a leg farther than the other, and you'll get a turn, einstein.

Anyway, i gotta say i'm pretty tired of people opening posts to try to "convince" the devs this or that stupid feature should be implemented. Someone must open one with a poll with 99 questions on "Why a battlemech should or should not have curly hair" or sth that fad...

SIDESTEPS ARE TO BATTLEMECHS AS BICYCLES ARE TO FISH.

Seriously?!

See this is the stuff that chaps my neither regions... It's okay to blather on about Mech necks, chicken feet and whether the Commander role is too empowered, yet something as simple and practical as a Mechs potential maneuverability is considered pedantic and not worth discussion?

This IS a forum right? As I understand it, forums are by design to be a place of community to include various forms of discussion, debate and mindless zealotry...

I believe I'm been very clear with explanation, accepting of others point-of-views and through it all everyone has by-in-large played nice.

I'd like to keep it that way?

[Liam]

Caballo I hope you realize that such a step can spread damage of incoming target at low mech speed?
It doesn't matter how far you can pop out of buildings conner. In some situations it will be very useful.
If you think it won't what bring you up from playing the way you like ... you don't need to use this feature.
If majority scream for it, developers would consider this mechanic and decide about a possible implementation ...

Edited by Liam, 09 February 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[Caballo]

DaZur, on 09 February 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Seriously?!

See this is the stuff that chaps my neither regions... It's okay to blather on about Mech necks, chicken feet and whether the Commander role is too empowered, yet something as simple and practical as a Mechs potential maneuverability is considered pedantic and not worth discussion?

This IS a forum right? As I understand it, forums are by design to be a place of community to include various forms of discussion, debate and mindless zealotry...

Blahblahblah

Can't buy that position when you said this:

DaZur, on 09 February 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Clearly this dead horse has been sufficiently tenderized...

Just by cursory count, the majority of participants do appreciate a side-step (slide step... side-shuffle... what ever you want to call it) as a viable maneuver. That said, only a few appreciate it at a logical maneuver in contrast to a torso-twisted cha-cha. Fewer yet, cannot get past the idea that any lateral movement is the equivalent of FPS'esk strafing...

I see this all as a worthwhile discussion as it made us all think and opened up some very interesting debate. Whether or not PGI sees this discussion a valuable and were able to glean anything from it, we'll have to wait and see.

From my point of view, you're trying to make the developers of the videogame implement something you want in, opening a post calling it "discussion" (which isn't) and then trying to lock it up saying "Hey, i haven't read the rest of the people's opinion, but i say everyone want's the same as me"

Correct me if i'm wrong...

Edited by Caballo, 09 February 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[DaZur]

Caballo, on 09 February 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Can't buy that position when you said this:

Just by cursory count, the majority of participants do appreciate a side-step (slide step... side-shuffle... what ever you want to call it) as a viable maneuver. That said, only a few appreciate it at a logical maneuver in contrast to a torso-twisted cha-cha. Fewer yet, cannot get past the idea that any lateral movement is the equivalent of FPS'esk strafing...

I see this all as a worthwhile discussion as it made us all think and opened up some very interesting debate. Whether or not PGI sees this discussion a valuable and were able to glean anything from it, we'll have to wait and see.



From my point of view, you're trying to make the developers of the videogame implement something you want in, opening a post calling it "discussion" (which isn't) and then trying to lock it up saying "Hey, i haven't read the rest of the people's opinion, but i say everyone want's the same as me"

Correct me if i'm wrong...

Yup... your wrong.

I effectively ended my discussion, acknowledging that there was a wide dispersal of opinion, horses were beaten and close it by summarizing my thoughts.

While I realize this might come as a surprise, but while the devs do listen to suggestion, these discussions are not demands and or the equivalent of holding guns to their heads... If they think it's a logical idea... cool. If not... I'm cool with that as well.

Hate to tell ya freind but if everyone had mental-lock like your demonstrating, we'd still be playing on 386's with CGA graphics...

Edited by DaZur, 09 February 2012 - 09:38 AM.

[Caballo]

DaZur, on 09 February 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Yup... your wrong.

I effectively ended my discussion, acknowledging that there was a wide dispersal of opinion, horses were beaten and close it by summarizing my thoughts.

While I realize this might come as a surprise, but while the devs do listen to suggestion, these discussions are not demands and or the equivalent of holding guns to their heads... If they think it's a logical idea... cool. If not... I'm cool with that as well.

Hate to tell ya freind but if everyone had mental-lock like your demonstrating, we'd still be playing on 386's with CGA graphics...

...And here is the insult.

I guess if i had the same thought patterns you have, i would keep trying to fly with wax and feathers.

Go ahead with your side-step crusade, mate. I'll save those two buttons for sth usefull.

Edited by Caballo, 09 February 2012 - 09:43 AM.

[DaZur]

wow...

No insult intended. I'm just pointing out the fact that you roled into this discussion, and you were the one with condecending "stupid feature", "Einstein" commentary (in fact by count you insulted at least two others yourself) along with the fact that you refuse to accept the fact that others may have varying opinions and have made a point to cancel each and every counter-opinion insisting you are right, we are wrong and "everything is fine as it is, leave it alone"

That said... This horse is tenderized as well. I'm not going to continue to spiral this thread until one of use proves the other wrong or the Devs lock the thread because we are behaving like morons.

Edited by DaZur, 09 February 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Caballo, on 09 February 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

Clearly not this:





Not talking about the imposibility of seeing a catapult moving the legs that way, whatever kaine insist.

Now imagine, from what little we do know, that a Scout Mech is down the road a ways, he has transfered targetting data to the Commander, who has relayed it to your Mech. All you need is expose you Pod to fire then the Scouts relayed data tracks the Missiles to their targets.

Wouldn't that be a useful use of a sidestep mechanic?

[DaZur]

MaddMaxx, on 09 February 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

Now imagine, from what little we do know, that a Scout Mech is down the road a ways, he has transfered targetting data to the Commander, who has relayed it to your Mech. All you need is expose you Pod to fire then the Scouts relayed data tracks the Missiles to their targets.

Wouldn't that be a useful use of a sidestep mechanic?

Logical example of where this might be a practical maneuver...

Trying to wrap my arms around why this maneuver is being met with such resistance and I can think of three particular explanations:

• We've all played way to many FPS where circle-strafing, bunny-hopping, pop-tarting, and all the other examples of game nerfing has soured us to a point of forming a death grip on keeping MWO from careening down that slippery slope.
  
• No frame of reference #1 - All previous MW games didn't have side-stepping and and it's just so darn hard to imagine it otherwise.
  
• No frame of reference #2 - Because we've never had a need for stealth scouting, target recon, interdiction missions and target lazing... it's difficult to imagine how it could possibly be used in a field of combat. I mean honestly... to date we accepted charging straight into frays allowing them to deteriorate into death-circles... how do we logically accept this?