167 replies to this topic

[Angus McBeef]

Kaspirikay, on 26 December 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Its actually a simulation of the forums in battlemech form. With the mechs as posters and weapons as arguments.

Can we rename the weapons after logical fallacies and rhetorical devices? We could then launch our slippery slope missiles and zap people with straw man lasers! FIRE THE HYPERBOLE CANNONS!

[TRIUMPH]

The game is a mecha tactical shooter. The controls are just a bit wonky compared to quake style games.

[Conure]

Sears, on 26 December 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

You used to get a lot of speculation threads before CB which were on the topic of simulation. Some people wanted it to take up to 24 hours to refit a mech to simulate how difficult it is to change mechs around. These are nice fluff ideas but they stop you playing.

The only way I could think of the piloting to become more simmish is to add more buttons that do things most people won't use, like headlights.

Does need the option to run passive though!

This game will be a compromise between simulation and arcade.

In my opinion a few things could hugely contribute to the simulation aspect of the game...Actually modelling the power supply of the mech and hydraulics would be one. A key thing would be damage control - so critical in any simulation. These machines are built to go into war, yet once they're in way they're like magical fairy machines that keep working til they blow up. If there were ways to redistribute power from the legs and torso to, say weaponry, or if components could catch fire and you had to extinguish them, or if you could leak hydraulic fluid thus hugely slowing your rate of turn and weapon aiming capacity.

More realistic computer systems...I mean, these mechs don't seem to be based on ultra high technology looking at their weaponry (which is cool), but it doesn't really add up with their indestructable onboard computers...Can you imagine if you took a hit to a power supply and you're forced to make the choice:

Keep weapons at full capacity with a blank hud and no targetting system, or reboot the hud and lose some range on your energy weapons.

Even things like flicking on a reactor core, Master Arm and then switching on targeting computer, inner outer weapon pylons...Would add so much to the immersion. Seeing the computers perform self checks at the start of a match etc.

Perhaps I'm just too much of a nerd.

Edited by Conure, 26 December 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[MEAT LOAF]

The call it a sim because it is a sim.

Sitting in a cockpit of a mech
Using a joystick to control it, much like you would if it was for real (Once the damn joystick support happens)

Pretty sure it's a sim.

[Elyam]

I'd consider this a relaxed sim. It fits the sim definition in many ways, but doesn't quite meet it. I don't say this because it doesn't have deep pilot control and knowledge complexity, as the OP proposes. I say it because it decides to not quite meet the known 'realities' of the limits of battletechnology in ways that the devs perceive the player base would reject. In order for the game to succeed they to balance the game's qualities so as to attract not only BT fans but those of FPS and other genres as well. While I don't like it, I can hardly blame them since the record of sim market success is one of undeniable weakening over time to the point where they've become a part of gaming history that only periodically gets minor attention in small spurts. I'd prefer something like the Microprose sim-lite approach taken so long ago with the F19, F15, Gunship, etc. as opposed to the more purist sim models, but I certainly want more than we see in MWO. But as a beginning to a whole Inner-Sphere meta-game approach, I can appreciate MWO as it is. It gets us in the soup, gets something cooking, and hopefully will come to fruition and gain the sort of following that might allow more detailed expressions of BT to once again be tried.

[Conure]

MEAT LOAF, on 26 December 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

The call it a sim because it is a sim.

Sitting in a cockpit of a mech
Using a joystick to control it, much like you would if it was for real (Once the damn joystick support happens)

Pretty sure it's a sim.

Does that make Hawx a sim too?

[Thomas Dziegielewski]

It's still too fast to be a true sim for me.

im totally falcon 5.0 bias.

[OldGrayDonkey]

I don't call this game a sim, as much as I'd like to. I wanted a mech simulaiton, but this isn't it. A simulation is by definition a simulation of a system. Mechs are a system of systems. Simulating one doesn't necessarily mean simulating hydraulics and all the internals of one, but there needs to be some semblance of reality to be a simulation, and there is just too much abstraction in MWO. It's not necessarily bad, but MWO just doesn't have it. I've written on this a few times, but to summarize my points:

1. A true simulation of weapons and damage would involve a match against materials and weapon types/damage. What we have is a discrete based system of +/- damage to a piece of X armor that derives from the pen-n-paper game and not physics. It's very simplistic. I don't consider it a simulation, but a simplistic representation of a system. Blow the armor away, then yes, you could include hydraulics and damage to them too to improve the fidelity of the simulation, but I would be happier with having a more natural physics based damage engine.

2. ECM: True simulation, signal strength vs. jamming technologies and sensor dependencies. What we have is simple range calculations, with an on/off countermeasure.

3. Detection of mechs. True simulation would be based on every aspect of physics. Instead we have line-of-site only. I still find it impossible to believe I can hear a mech walking behind me, but my sensors can't pick it up and display it. True 3D sound would help some too.

There are other aspects of the game too, but those are the big three for me, and taken together they add up that MWO isn't a simulation, it's an abstraction of a realistic system that takes too many liberties and doesn't make sense with what physics should tell us. My comparison is that MWO is based on 20th century Earth technology, not some futuristic space faring civilization that has chosen to duke it out in Mechs instead of other methods of ground based vehicles. It's a little disappointing, though it can be fun in small amounts. I couldn't imaging spending hours and hours in it.

I disagree that you would need an external power source to power up a mech. I would hope a space faring race could create one small enough to power a mech.

By contrast, an arcade game suspends all belief in physics and just has fun with simplistic controls. Unfortunately for me and many like me, this is all too close to what MWO is. I understand that a space faring race should be able to create a very simplistic interface to control mechs, but the GUI in MWO and most mech games for that matter, is severely lacking in creativity and advanced software techniques. It doesn't even do what our current software can do today, like track (Edit: and engage) multiple targets, or display areas of uncertainty where our last position of an enemy was detected.

Edited by Darkstang, 26 December 2012 - 10:36 AM.

[Conure]

Darkstang, on 26 December 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

I don't call this game a sim, as much as I'd like to. I wanted a mech simulaiton, but this isn't it. A simulation is by definition a simulation of a system. Mechs are a system of systems. Simulating one doesn't necessarily mean simulating hydraulics and all the internals of one, but there needs to be some semblance of reality to be a simulation, and there is just too much abstraction in MWO. It's not necessarily bad, but MWO just doesn't have it. I've written on this a few times, but to summarize my points:

1. A true simulation of weapons and damage would involve a match against materials and weapon types/damage. What we have is a discrete based system of +/- damage to a piece of X armor that derives from the pen-n-paper game and not physics. It's very simplistic. I don't consider it a simulation, but a simplistic representation of a system. Blow the armor away, then yes, you could include hydraulics and damage to them too to improve the fidelity of the simulation, but I would be happier with having a more natural physics based damage engine.

2. ECM: True simulation, signal strength vs. jamming technologies and sensor dependencies. What we have is simple range calculations, with an on/off countermeasure.

3. Detection of mechs. True simulation would be based on every aspect of physics. Instead we have line-of-site only. I still find it impossible to believe I can hear a mech walking behind me, but my sensors can't pick it up and display it. True 3D sound would help some too.

There are other aspects of the game too, but those are the big three for me, and taken together they add up that MWO isn't a simulation, it's an abstraction of a realistic system that takes too many liberties and doesn't make sense with what physics should tell us. My comparison is that MWO is based on 20th century Earth technology, not some futuristic space faring civilization that has chosen to duke it out in Mechs instead of other methods of ground based vehicles. It's a little disappointing, though it can be fun in small amounts. I couldn't imaging spending hours and hours in it.

I disagree that you would need an external power source to power up a mech. I would hope a space faring race could create one small enough to power a mech.

By contrast, an arcade game suspends all belief in physics and just has fun with simplistic controls. Unfortunately for me and many like me, this is all too close to what MWO is. I understand that a space faring race should be able to create a very simplistic interface to control mechs, but the GUI in MWO and most mech games for that matter, is severely lacking in creativity and advanced software techniques. It doesn't even do what our current software can do today, like track (Edit: and engage) multiple targets, or display areas of uncertainty where our last position of an enemy was detected.

I agree with pretty much everything in the post - including the bit about external ground power. Though I think it would be needed on a damaged mech I think you're right, this level of technology would be able to get running off its own steam. Probably some kind of microreactor to provide power in the event of damage though.

Edited by Conure, 26 December 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[Sears]

Darkstang, on 26 December 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

I don't call this game a sim, as much as I'd like to. I wanted a mech simulaiton, but this isn't it. A simulation is by definition a simulation of a system. Mechs are a system of systems. Simulating one doesn't necessarily mean simulating hydraulics and all the internals of one, but there needs to be some semblance of reality to be a simulation, and there is just too much abstraction in MWO. It's not necessarily bad, but MWO just doesn't have it. I've written on this a few times, but to summarize my points:

1. A true simulation of weapons and damage would involve a match against materials and weapon types/damage. What we have is a discrete based system of +/- damage to a piece of X armor that derives from the pen-n-paper game and not physics. It's very simplistic. I don't consider it a simulation, but a simplistic representation of a system. Blow the armor away, then yes, you could include hydraulics and damage to them too to improve the fidelity of the simulation, but I would be happier with having a more natural physics based damage engine.

2. ECM: True simulation, signal strength vs. jamming technologies and sensor dependencies. What we have is simple range calculations, with an on/off countermeasure.

3. Detection of mechs. True simulation would be based on every aspect of physics. Instead we have line-of-site only. I still find it impossible to believe I can hear a mech walking behind me, but my sensors can't pick it up and display it. True 3D sound would help some too.

There are other aspects of the game too, but those are the big three for me, and taken together they add up that MWO isn't a simulation, it's an abstraction of a realistic system that takes too many liberties and doesn't make sense with what physics should tell us. My comparison is that MWO is based on 20th century Earth technology, not some futuristic space faring civilization that has chosen to duke it out in Mechs instead of other methods of ground based vehicles. It's a little disappointing, though it can be fun in small amounts. I couldn't imaging spending hours and hours in it.

I disagree that you would need an external power source to power up a mech. I would hope a space faring race could create one small enough to power a mech.

By contrast, an arcade game suspends all belief in physics and just has fun with simplistic controls. Unfortunately for me and many like me, this is all too close to what MWO is. I understand that a space faring race should be able to create a very simplistic interface to control mechs, but the GUI in MWO and most mech games for that matter, is severely lacking in creativity and advanced software techniques. It doesn't even do what our current software can do today, like track (Edit: and engage) multiple targets, or display areas of uncertainty where our last position of an enemy was detected.

Welcome to battletech/Mechwarrior where 700m is long range.

[Conure]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 26 December 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

It's still too fast to be a true sim for me.

im totally falcon 5.0 bias.

Now that was a sim - Do you fly BMS?

[ThinkTank]

After spending a week learning how to to start up the reactor, another week learning how to check off the systems and a few more days learning this and that, I would still drop into a match and win or lose in about 10 minutes. A "real" sim would then require my pilot to be dead or safely ejected and then I may never have the chance to drive another Mech because there really aren't very many of them in post-apocalyptic BFE. I kind of like it the way it is now, somewhere in between Pac-Man and Ultra Deluxe Cessna School ver. 1.659.

[Spoo Hunter]

StrataDragoon, on 26 December 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

Only TRUE similator I know of Is Flight Simulator. Thus mechs are not real, so this isnt a TRUE simulator. But it has a little bit of the feel to it. Its mroe of a Simulator than HAWKEN

Only TRUE similator??? There is also X-Plane, which because it works by simulating airflow over the airfoils is a more accurate flight simulator than Flight Simulator. Orbiter is a good spaceflight simulator. There is also Sim City, The Sims, Tiger Woods PGA Tour, Trains, Microsoft Train Simulator and dozens more I don't even know about.

That rant aisde, the problem here is that everybody has their own idea of what a simulator is and assumes everbody else has the same definition. A simulation of a bank queue is still a simulation even though it does not come with a thousand page manual. Likewise simulations can be made for things that do not exist to see how they may work in the real world. Then there is scale. A simulation does not cease to be just because it is simple. True, it becomes more of a game, but it still simulates an experiance. For example car racing games can be rather simple but gives the player the visceral experiance of racing cars without the risk or expense.

In the end I would say a simulator is something that replacates the performance or function of a system that may be real world or conceptual without actually being the system. I will add that the differance between a game and simulation is in the mind of the observer. To me MWO is both a game and a simulation of what driving a BattleMech could be like if they were possible.

[Ghostly Enigma]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

In my opinion a few things could hugely contribute to the simulation aspect of the game...Actually modelling the power supply of the mech and hydraulics would be one. A key thing would be damage control - so critical in any simulation. These machines are built to go into war, yet once they're in way they're like magical fairy machines that keep working til they blow up. If there were ways to redistribute power from the legs and torso to, say weaponry, or if components could catch fire and you had to extinguish them, or if you could leak hydraulic fluid thus hugely slowing your rate of turn and weapon aiming capacity.

More realistic computer systems...I mean, these mechs don't seem to be based on ultra high technology looking at their weaponry (which is cool), but it doesn't really add up with their indestructable onboard computers...Can you imagine if you took a hit to a power supply and you're forced to make the choice:

Keep weapons at full capacity with a blank hud and no targetting system, or reboot the hud and lose some range on your energy weapons.

Even things like flicking on a reactor core, Master Arm and then switching on targeting computer, inner outer weapon pylons...Would add so much to the immersion. Seeing the computers perform self checks at the start of a match etc.

Perhaps I'm just too much of a nerd.

I would like to point out a few things you have wrong in how you think the mechs work. For one they do not use hydraulic systems to move they use Myomer to move as outlined here http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Myomer in fact this is some thing we are slowly developing now days.
Another point at lest in the Table top version the engine could be hit and still run at full power at lest twice how ever after the 3rd hit or if the cooling systems got over loaded the safety systems well shutdown the engine as out lined here http://www.sarna.net...i/Fusion_Engine the mechs do not "blow up" or "Explode" they shut down and well not restart there for the pilots out side of a hit to the cockpit survives.
Yes there are points of damage and heat that do effect the mechs but as yet they are not taken in to account in the MWO game at this time that at some point well be added I at lest hope so.
As others have stated this is at the base a low level sim you are talking about the higher and more hard core sims that are a step down from the training sims used to train actual pilots we do not need that level of sim in MWO.

[Colaessus]

To the OP, How would you know if it is a "sim" or not.
You have nothing to compare it to.

For all that you know, this is the best SIMULATION of possible mech combat piloting.

Whats that, sim stands for simulation. Damn

[Conure]

Amro One, on 26 December 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

To the OP, How would you know if it is a "sim" or not.
You have nothing to compare it to.

For all that you know, this is the best SIMULATION of possible mech combat piloting.

Whats that, sim stands for simulation. Damn

Sorry, is that an argument or a point or...What? I don't really understand.

Did you read any of my posts? I think I explain quite clearly the logic behind what I'm saying..

Ghostly Enigma, on 26 December 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

I would like to point out a few things you have wrong in how you think the mechs work. For one they do not use hydraulic systems to move they use Myomer to move as outlined here http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Myomer in fact this is some thing we are slowly developing now days.
Another point at lest in the Table top version the engine could be hit and still run at full power at lest twice how ever after the 3rd hit or if the cooling systems got over loaded the safety systems well shutdown the engine as out lined here http://www.sarna.net...i/Fusion_Engine the mechs do not "blow up" or "Explode" they shut down and well not restart there for the pilots out side of a hit to the cockpit survives.
Yes there are points of damage and heat that do effect the mechs but as yet they are not taken in to account in the MWO game at this time that at some point well be added I at lest hope so.
As others have stated this is at the base a low level sim you are talking about the higher and more hard core sims that are a step down from the training sims used to train actual pilots we do not need that level of sim in MWO.

Thank you for that link - it's interesting.

[Beo Vulf]

Adridos, on 26 December 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

If you simulate a world so far into the future they have neurohelmets that directly reproduce input of your thoughts into the mech's movement, it's kinda hard to see a 1000 page manual describing how to move like a normal human + a throttle, 2 pedals, eject button and a joystick. If anything, the amount of buttons in the cockpit is pretty misleading of the actual imput you have on the mech.

Lets go canon. Mechwarriors go to school for many years to learn how to properly operate their mechs. It follows that for a mech which has a fusion (Nuclear) engine you would have to learn start up, shut down procedures under normal and emergency situations. You would have to learn normal and emergency procedures for the operation of your various weapons, and how to use them if they should be knocked out of alignment. How to do field expedient repairs until you could get your mech back to a mechanic, or base. You would have to learn how to deal with abnormal situations in all the operating systems of your mech. Many of these things would be learned in the Simulator. So from a strictly defined set of requirements that were pointed out above this is not a sim.

[Heeden]

The game attempts to simulate the experience of a battlemech pilot.

Unlike Hawken (which I am only using as an example) you don't just push forward to go forward, you press the throttle-up button to set the desired speed and the battlemech accelerates accordingly. I guess the difference is FPS games you play the thing that is running and shooting, whilst in a simulator you play the pilot of the thing.

It might not be as in-depth a simulator as you would like (with the hydraulics etc) but it still fits the simulator genre closer than any other.

Also, contrary to your earlier comment about the mechs being "like magical fairy machines that keep working til they blow up", various areas of the mech (left/right/side torso, left/right arms/legs, head) take damage independently and when they are destroyed you lose the benefits of equipment and ammo stored in that section (with the added bonus that ammo explosions can affect adjacent areas); so losing one of your arms can cut down your fire-power whilst losing a leg reduces speed.

[verybad]

MEAT LOAF, on 26 December 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

The call it a sim because it is a sim.

Sitting in a cockpit of a mech
Using a joystick to control it, much like you would if it was for real (Once the damn joystick support happens)

Pretty sure it's a sim.

It's not a sim. It's a FPS with a mech take on it. It's far from a sim. It's got a bit less forgiving movement than standard FPS, but it's far far from a sim.

[xRaeder]

Until MWO attempts to calculate armor thickness and penetration values it will be an arcade game... just like every other Mechwarrior game.

Just compare World War 2 Online to this. WW2OL is a sim... this never will be.