137 replies to this topic

[Soule]

m0nk33, on 14 March 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

LOL, so a mech with no working leg actuators is expected to balance on its pelvis? Hmmm....logic and realism?

True and it's going to be hard to pull of consistent leg shots anyway.

[syngyne]

m0nk33, on 14 March 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

LOL, so a mech with no working leg actuators is expected to balance on its pelvis? Hmmm....logic and realism?

I'm also not entirely sure how a 'Mech like a Jenner with little stubby arms is supposed to right itself.

Edit: I am also hoping that the 'Mech's don't just explode when both their legs are destroyed. I'm all for having them just fall flat on their faces and go inactive, though.

Edited by syngyne, 14 March 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[Siilk]

m0nk33, on 14 March 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

LOL, so a mech with no working leg actuators is expected to balance on its pelvis? Hmmm....logic and realism?

As per TT(and general BT lore for that matter), mechs can orient themselves in a semi-upright manner, using their arms and what's left of their legs. But sure, exploding(our of despair, no doubt) when your legs are gone is more realistic.

[Spooky]

Siilk, on 14 March 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Dude, I'm not talking about RL logic and realism, mind you. But even BT in-universe logic and realism is again thrown out of a window just to take an easy way out. How on earth "mech destruction by blowing both legs" can be justified? But enough of that, clearly, devs made their choice and I suppose there's nothing that could be done to make them alter their decision.

Well, strictly speaking there is nothing set in stone yet, may be. I understand what you mean of course. While I would also prefer something like MWLL is going to implement soon, I am at least glad that it is properly adressed. MW4's way of handling legging may be detriment to the suspension of disbelieve, but that's still better for gameplay than... the way MW2 or MW3 went.

Siilk, on 14 March 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

I am confused because it is quite fundamental concept of weapon control in MW games and it's rather easy to implement so I wonder why it's not been a higher priority from the beginning.

MWLL, a game where you are an 'Apprentice Dev' according to your status, had proper chain firing only implemented in one of its 0.4.something patches . Before that, only the weapons in the first group could be chainfired. I wasn't really around before 0.4.x, so I can't say if chain firing was available right from the start at all, but I would assume so at least.

Apart from that, I can understand your confusion, since it's something seemingly simple and something that was a given in any other MechWarrior game as well (or was it? When I think about it, I have no recollection if and how you activated chain firing in MW4, but I guess it was available ). However I think it's safe to assume that the developers working on MWO know what they are doing and thus there could be other reasons, complications, gameplay considerations or whatever, which are not apparent to us forum users.

Siilk, on 14 March 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

As per TT(and general BT lore for that matter), mechs can orient themselves in a semi-upright manner, using their arms and what's left of their legs.

This not the Tabletop game, thankfully. And neither is MWLL or the other Mechwarrior games before. If you want to go by the Tabletop game, legs wouldn't be targetable in the first place...

Siilk, on 14 March 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

But sure, exploding(our of despair, no doubt) when your legs are gone is more realistic.

The Mech won't "explode" .

Edited by Spooky, 14 March 2012 - 11:28 AM.

[osito]

Thank you devs, your answers have helped a great deal and have also opened more questions but that is to be expected. Keep up the good work.

[AlanEsh]

syngyne, on 14 March 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

How is convergence going to work with projectile weapons that you have to lead?

You ask because if you lead a target, your cursor will be on something distant/in the background, rather than the mech?

I guess if I'm firing at a mech moving so fast that I have to lead it, I'd prefer my convergence be WIDER so I have a lot better chance of hitting with something.

On the other hand, I can see the value of putting your targeting cursor on a spot, waiting for convergence, then holding SHIFT or RMB or something to temporarily lock the gimbals at that convergence point, until you release the lock.

[Garth Erlam]

Siilk, on 14 March 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

But sure, exploding(our of despair, no doubt) when your legs are gone is more realistic.

Where was that said exactly?

[ScrewCityChris]

I may be the only one, but I thought the glowing eyes was really neat (visually), and will be sad its out

Great questions, and I am exited by what we have learned

Edited by ScrewCityChris, 14 March 2012 - 11:30 AM.

[Spooky]

Angelicon, on 14 March 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

You ask because if you lead a target, your cursor will be on something distant/in the background, rather than the mech?

I guess if I'm firing at a mech moving so fast that I have to lead it, I'd prefer my convergence be WIDER so I have a lot better chance of hitting with something.

On the other hand, I can see the value of putting your targeting cursor on a spot, waiting for convergence, then holding SHIFT or RMB or something to temporarily lock the gimbals at that convergence point, until you release the lock.

You can see the effect of that in MWLL. In MWLL the weapons convergence distant changes instantly to the distance under your reticule. And having the weapon convergence spread when leading a target, because your reticule may then aim at something 2 km away makes it a lot harder to hit with something. This worsens the farther away your weapons are relative from the cockpit and it gets even worse when the weapons are not horizontally aligned with the cockpit.

I addressed this in the other thread, where the weapon convergence lag was first mentioned. Having the lag there might make it actually easier to hit a fast moving Mech, when you have to lead him. But if the convergence changes fast enough (and you have no way of 'locking' the convergence distance), then it wouldn't matter.

[Khann]

Cant wait for this game!!

[Adridos]

I have a question, that might as well get answered next week, but I'll ask anyway.

Who's the producer Garth?

[Kaemon]

still waiting for goodness...

[Garth Erlam]

Wasn't that the video she released?

[Adridos]

Garth Erlam, on 14 March 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Wasn't that the video she released?

No, she released it yesterday.

[ScrewCityChris]

Nothing is ever good enough for any of you..

[Qman]

Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. I have been online gaming for a long time now and you guys stand out as the one the best communicators in the industry. Keep up the good work.

Perhaps you could have a QnA where the devs ask the questions...

[Soule]

ScrewCityChris, on 14 March 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Nothing is ever good enough for any of you..

Some of us have waited ten years for this sooooooo.... yeah nothing can be.

[Kaemon]

I was hoping for a bit more new info, it has been stated these questions have already been answered if you root around the forums/GDC stuff.

That's all.

[Qman]

ScrewCityChris, on 14 March 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Nothing is ever good enough for any of you..

Dont paint all of us with the same brush. i am always happy for information be it new or old.

[KaiserSoze]

I will give it to all the developers, they are working very hard on getting the right balance between Mechwarrior and Battletech... FTP Thank You ALL!!!!!