137 replies to this topic

[Chuckie]

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

Nothing is ever good enough for any of you..

Very true.. at least until I get my Closed Alpha/Beta access and an Awesome.. Then maybe

Edited by Chuckie, 14 March 2012 - 12:50 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

I am disappointed that none of my questions about weapons cycle time and heat management were addressed.

/pouts

[Morashtak]

Thanks for the info, team.

Looking forward to the PPC circuitry nerfing itself at close range due to self-preservation logic.

[AIecto]

Thanks for all of this new info; which answered one of the questions that's been on my mind the past couple of days, that being related to hit and miss mechanics. Was also really great to read that the damage/targeting systems will be so complex, as others have already stated being able to shoot off a mechs arm or leg is going to be a lot of fun!

Keep up the great work!

[mekabuser]

I may have missed it, but does"destroy center torso to destroy mech" mean completely blowing a hole through side torsos does not result in mech death>? Does that mean you have to destroy side torso and then destroy CT internals? My heads a little foggy, is that how it works in MWLL also?
Seems like the devs have a lot of work to do. ALot, but it obvious they have done so much already.
keep it up!.
I have always liked to set up my mech weapons loadout with one group assigned to a particular side of a mech i.e 2 er large on the right arm is a group where the total load out for a mech is two erl arge in each arm and say an lbx ten in the torso.
I am trying to visualize if in this hypothetical mech the two er large coming from one arm would converge faster than two firing from each arM? I think it would be pretty much instantaneous coming from one side of a mech? no?
Someone else also was talking about convergence in relation to targets one has to lead i.e. trying to hit a mech moving laterally with ac 10 in each arm. That kind of deflection shot means , as far as I know, your xhairs wont be anywhere near the mech you are targeting.Will that kind of shot be something that can be intuited visually with a "test shot"?
Will you have to sweep xhairs across target x to give computer a baseline reference for target?
very curious about convergence time from min to max distance.
Will it be faster for light mechs?
Since a lazer range finder is near instant info, the only variable is the relay of info to whatever moves the weapons. THis mechanic has to be faster than say the two reticule lag<otherwise whats the point of arm x hairs>
Mentally imagining the response time of weapons to converge, Im thinking somewhere around .5 second.. max for arms? Any longer and its not a targeting computer but an eniac.
As long as its intuitive, everyone will be using the same mechanics anyway. One should be able to viusally assess instantly, using the targeting computer between your ears, exactly what you have to do to hit target x with one ac 20 slug deflection shot.
~S~ Devs

[Thorn Hallis]

If only half of the promised features will make it into the game MWO will be the best simulation of mech warfare ever made.

[Arnold Carns]

Thorn Hallis, on 14 March 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

If only half of the promised features will make it into the game MWO will be the best simulation of mech warfare ever made.

Even 2/3 would make it!

[eviljoven]

Quote

David - Yes, all keys and buttons can be completely reconfigured. And we have been looking at alternate controls beyond a keyboard and mouse (joystick, pedals, throttle, etc.) but those have yet to be fully nailed down.

I'm really hoping that you folks are making joystick/control peripheral support a priority. A lot of people looking forward to this game are old hats that played most/all of the previous titles with a joystick and want to keep the tradition.

These days, quite a few people have multiple gaming devices that don't show up as a single device (a joystick and throttle from one manufacturer, rudders from another) so if at all possible, support for multiple joysticks should be on the table.

And although there are hints of TrackIR support, I'd really like to see confirmation that it'll be in the game. Any game that involves flying or driving a vehicle from within a cockpit is made much better if it's available.

Edited by eviljoven, 14 March 2012 - 02:57 PM.

[Talenvar]

First off, thank you for the answers. Much appreciated.

Now to brass tacks....Achievements and Medals.

Scenario: The Zeus is surrounded by lights right around the corner from the capture zone while another heavy is sitting there getting cap points. The Zeus is heavily damaged and can't take much more.

Zeus: Get your *blank* out here and HELP ME!!!
Catapult: Naw dude, I need 50 more Capture points for my medal.
Zeus: *blank* YOU!! ......
Zeus dies......

Light mechs shout *LOL* *You Suck* yada yada yada .... starting to sound like a daily episode of WoT .... where people are only interested in themselves, their medals and their achievements instead of the team play.

Please think hard about how you implement these medals and achievements because it only opens up the way to think about what can I do, legal or cheating, to get them rather than what can I do for my team.

Team play first please .... medals and achievements should be gravy, not the entire meal.

[Waylandx]

Great Info, TY!
Now i cant wait to here more about the Mechlab!

[J0anna]

The answers are obviously well thought out and detailed, nice. I wonder the reason why destroying both legs = destroyed mech, but I suppose sitting there as a pillbox probably won't be useful. The no mechwarrior death is probably required as nobody will want to see a character they've trained up for months just disappear on a fluke headshot.

Getting more and more excited for summer

[wwiiogre]

Going back to TT, when is a mech destroyed? Well they answer that question mainly for morale purposes and to stop griefers from suiciding. The important thing to remember is every mech is priceless and very few new ones are being made and most of the ones people actually use in the fiction are hundreds of years old and handed down from great grandfather to grandfather to father to son/daughter do the gender thing for yourself if it makes you happy.

So unless under very specific situations most mech pilots would surrender when their mech was made non effective (usually when made immobile, weapons mostly destroyed or pilot was wounded); some would only give up and eject when center torso was completely destroyed. Now there is a difference between armor points and structure points destroyed and mech completely destroyed. The difference is the components that can suffer criticals are still there even if the center torso or right torso or left torso have been completely stripped of armor and structure. Same goes for the legs, the actuators are still there, same for the arms. Which means you can get a new A Frame or Internal Structure for the Mech if the component pieces are still there. Most that have been critically damaged can still be bubblegum and baling wire and duct taped back together. Remember these mechs have been scrapped together and kept running for hundreds of years without a Napa part supplier around the corner with every widget you need new and off the shelf. So A good machine shop, a good machinist and a good tech can do wonders with raw materials or damaged ones and can pull off miracles. Thus the FrankenMechs are born. If you have the new tabletop books they go into great length and detail about times to repair or replace damaged or destroyed parts of the mech.

So with the talk that the Dev team have been doing thru all of this. I think their take on this (my opinion) is that mechs are to priceless to scrap after every battle and lots of love and work and scrappy repair goes into making these old babies keep running. Only Houses with their enormous resources of hundreds of systems and uncountable amounts of CBills can afford new mechs or to keep them up at near perfect running order. And since most of us will be mercs or House unit members with low rank standing initially I imagine we will be scraping and working just to keep our mech or mechs in running order initially. Later after months and months of steady work as a merc or house soldier we might have earned some serious CBills and loyalty points or gained our own world with some benefits such that we will have the ability for top of the line gear and such. But for now the Devs appear to say that destroyed is not really destroyed but just made unplayable at the time and mech itself is of such value that when certain things happen they will force you to stop playing, cause in canon and in real life most people are not die hard fanatics that will kill themselves intentionally. So they say if such and such happens your mech is destroyed, I say its there way of saying, you are out of the combat for now. They have said your mech will not be destroyed but will be functional with some damage. This is better than having to get a whole new mech. I am ok with this, since this is a simulation and not an arcade game.

So give them a break and lets see how it really plays out before we cry about the milk being spilled when the cow hasn't even been milked yet or even born yet. Lets wait till we actually get a glass of milk and drink it. Say like when the game comes out and we have played it for awhile.

chris

[Strum Wealh]

Quote

(similar to ammunition explosions) “Will there be similar effects for other equipment, such as your engine shielding being damaged and producing more waste heat as the internal structure in your torso takes damage?” –colodie

[DAVID] Yep, all the weapons and equipment on board your ’Mech are able to take damage, and each will produce different gameplay effects. Damaged engines will produce heat, damaged weapons will stop working (and some of them explode), damaged heat sinks impair your cooling, etc.

-----

How many different possible ways can your mech get destroyed or "mechwarrior" die (i.e. Your mechwarrior takes damage from high heat levels and can "pass out" or "die" if it takes enough damage, ect..). -=Outlaw=

[DAVID] To destroy a BattleMech, you have to destroy the head, destroy the center torso, or destroy both legs. You, the MechWarrior, can never die.

How might this work with regard to standard fusion engines (traditionally CT only) vs XL fusion engines (traditionally extends into the side-torsos)?

With IS XL engines, it was (canonically) enough to take out either side-torso to destroy the engine and take down the 'Mech, while doing the same to a 'Mech with a Clan XL engine would severely hamper a 'Mech, but not be enough to destroy the engine (though, said Clan XL engine would be destroyed with the destruction of both side-torsos).
As I understood it, this was the primary downside to XL engines, to serve as the counterbalance to the main benefit (additional tonnage to mount more weapons and armor and/or a higher-rated engine for greater speed).

For 'Mechs with XL engines, will the destruction of one (IS XL engines) or both (Clan XL engines) of the side-torsos count toward the destruction of a 'Mech? If not, what is the planned replacement for that balancing mechanic?

[Derick Cruisaire]

Thanks for all the information given in the Q&A. Your answers were quite informative.

I am, however, still wondering about jump movement.

Ah well. I am sure it will be clarified soon enough.

[Karyu]

So it sounds like we might FINALLY get a Mech sim that is actually worthy of being called a sim, and still manage to be fun. This is layer upon layer of awesomeness. I can't wait.

[DAVID] [color=#CCCCCC]You’ll have to wait until next month, when we reveal more about the MechLab in our Dev Blog.[/color]

The MechLab is easily just as important as the the actual gameplay.

[Siilk]

Garth Erlam, on 14 March 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Where was that said exactly?

I was referring to this passage:

InnerSphereNews, on 14 March 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

[DAVID] To destroy a BattleMech, you have to destroy the head, destroy the center torso, or destroy both legs.

It was "destroy", not "immobilize" or "incapacitate". Is it something else that is implied by "destruction of a battlemech" in that case? As for the design decision itself, I pretty much understand where this is coming from, yet I think it is not the best way to cope with leg destruction. Of course, making all the animations and dealing with possible stalemates is harder than arbitrary making it a game over when mech lost both legs but such things are what separates good games from excellent games, and excellence in MW simulation is what, I think, you are reaching for with MWO.

But enough of that. I would gladly present my arguments on this case to you in the appropriate thread or a PM, if you're up for the discussion, but if it's a closed case, the decision is already made and it's final, I would not bother you more.

wwiiogre, on 14 March 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

So unless under very specific situations most mech pilots would surrender when their mech was made non effective (usually when made immobile, weapons mostly destroyed or pilot was wounded);

I agree with your premise but disagree with your conclusion. True, mech are rare, expensive and extremely cherished by their owners. But when the mech pilot surrenders or ejects, his mech becomes a part of the salvage. If pilot's lancemates are the winning side, he would probably have his ride back. But if his lance is defeated or forced to retreat, his mech would be the trophy of the enemy forces. So, by surrendering/early ejecting the pilot would not only throws away the chance to deal some more damage to the enemy forces, he would also at risk of supplying enemy forces with a semi-working mech, which they could now use to their advantage.

[Nekomimimode]

I may have missed it, but what about the DFA? i'd like to know if the DFA(death from above) will be implimented into the game for mechs with the jump-jets. If that question has been answered before already, can i have the link to it?

PS: So far the game seems absolutely awesome. Cant wait to play it.

Edited by Nekomimimode, 14 March 2012 - 11:09 PM.

[syngyne]

Siilk, on 14 March 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

It was "destroy", not "immobilize" or "incapacitate". Is it something else that is implied by "destruction of a battlemech" in that case? As for the design decision itself, I pretty much understand where this is coming from, yet I think it is not the best way to cope with leg destruction. Of course, making all the animations and dealing with possible stalemates is harder than arbitrary making it a game over when mech lost both legs but such things are what separates good games from excellent games, and excellence in MW simulation is what, I think, you are reaching for with MWO.

Here's a question. Your 'Mech has been legged, and you've managed to prop yourself up again. What incentive does anyone have for staying in range (or line of sight, given limited torso twist) of you at that point?

[Namwons]

syngyne, on 14 March 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Here's a question. Your 'Mech has been legged, and you've managed to prop yourself up again. What incentive does anyone have for staying in range (or line of sight, given limited torso twist) of you at that point?

to counter...what if you got legged in your base entrance? then they would have to approach to enter

[Siilk]

syngyne, on 14 March 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Here's a question. Your 'Mech has been legged, and you've managed to prop yourself up again. What incentive does anyone have for staying in range (or line of sight, given limited torso twist) of you at that point?

Namwons gave one example, I would continue with this: most of the time, battles are neither one on one nor too far from your allies. Hence, immobile mech can provide fire support for it's lancemates, firing at enemies in range, which either have to finish immobile mech off or suffer from it's attacks while fighting. Support mechs with indirect fire weapons(LRMs, ArrowIVs) are of even better use, as they are not required to have LoS to get the missile lock, if friendly scout is out there to feed them targeting info. Speaking of scouts, disabled scout would still be able to provide such info to friendly units, keeping sensors active as long as possible and calling out targets for fire support. Besides, fallen mech would always have at least one target: the one that incapacitated it, which is usually as heavily damaged and often quite close and in range for a counterattack.

Of course, in any case, effectiveness of immobile mech would be much lower, than of a undamaged one, but it would be somehow useful nevertheless. Besides, we can say the same about any type of structural damage: imagine a mech with all it's weapons destroyed. Should it be considered "a kill"? Or better, a ballistic/missile only mech with no ammo left. Is it useful? Or maybe it's player should be forced to spectator mode? There's a lot of things severely damaged/unarmed mech could do: ramming, DFA, targeting info, scary signature on an enemy radar("oh, they still have 4 mechs left! we'd better retreat"), all that without firing a shot. You see, it's all about opportunities and using all what you have to it's fullest.

In short, would immobile mech be effective? Yes. Would it be as effective as brand-new mech? No. Would it be as effective as armless/ammoless/heavily damaged mech? It really depends on a situation but it could very much be so. Would it be more effective than completely destroyed mech? Absolutely. My idea here is to let the pilot decide, if he can still fight or not. Ejection lever is out there, if you think you cannot do anything, just pull it. I just don't want anybody to pull in in my stead, because he thinks I would hardly be of any use.