167 replies to this topic

[King Arthur IV]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

I can pretty confidently stipulate that this game is not only not a sim, it is an extremely simple arcade shooter.

i pretty much stop reading after this line.

this is hardly the same game as quake live. you may not appreciate the heat management, armor distribution, weapon/item effects, weather/dynamic lighting distortion, mech classes and their roles etc but i do. these things set this game apart from a simple pew pew game. the game modes may be a bit dull right now but the game is very tactical. the fact that you can not only head shot but also take out arms/ torso/ legs, ammo, armor etc sets this game apart.

as for your "its not a sim" remark. im going to argue its in between a real simulator (the ones that come with an encyclopedia of a manual) and simple ac shooter. its not a sim cuz of the reasons you have stated and its not a simple pew pew for the reason i have.

i think your taking this whole "its not a sim" thing a little far. i dont think anyone wants the game to be a "real life" simulator and all, with with accounts of friction, wind, physics, blah blah blah etc because we all know a real mech wouldn't even move let alone crush its own foot. the game is suppose to be fun and tactical/skill bases with the variety of variables a pilot is given. all these extra variables make this game more then just a point and shoot fps, calling it a sim because it is more complicated.

if your offended that people are calling it a sim because it barely even lives up to getting your drivers license, just meditate on this. "its a game, its a game, its a game, its a game, its a game, its a game, its a gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammme," ooooOOOOOooohh

[Conure]

King Arthur IV, on 26 December 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

i pretty much stop reading after this line.

this is hardly the same game as quake live. you may not appreciate the heat management, armor distribution, weapon/item effects, weather/dynamic lighting distortion, mech classes and their roles etc but i do. these things set this game apart from a simple pew pew game. the game modes may be a bit dull right now but the game is very tactical. the fact that you can not only head shot but also take out arms/ torso/ legs, ammo, armor etc sets this game apart.

as for your "its not a sim" remark. im going to argue its in between a real simulator (the ones that come with an encyclopedia of a manual) and simple ac shooter. its not a sim cuz of the reasons you have stated and its not a simple pew pew for the reason i have.

i think your taking this whole "its not a sim" thing a little far. i dont think anyone wants the game to be a "real life" simulator and all, with with accounts of friction, wind, physics, blah blah blah etc because we all know a real mech wouldn't even move let alone crush its own foot. the game is suppose to be fun and tactical/skill bases with the variety of variables a pilot is given. all these extra variables make this game more then just a point and shoot fps, calling it a sim because it is more complicated.

if your offended that people are calling it a sim because it barely even lives up to getting your drivers license, just meditate on this. "its a game, its a game, its a game, its a game, its a game, its a game, its a gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammme," ooooOOOOOooohh

I completely agree - it is just a game!

Quite the opposite to a simulation.

[PurpleNinja]

xRaeder, on 26 December 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

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.

It does, in MWO the armor is called "armor" and the penetration is called "damage".

[Abrahms]

Simulator is a term to describe a "game" or "program" that has the intent to simulate something, generally from the real world.

A lot of flight sims reenact physics, flight models, weapon systems, some start up, etc, but almost never simulate everything.

A lot of early flight sims worked really hard and simulating flight physics, etc, but not the actual button pressing of the cockpit.



Mechwarrior has never really been a simulator. Its generally always been an advance arcade game. It has a simulator feel because its a slower paced game that emphasized decision making (mech tonnage, customization, turning, group formation, etc) more than "point here and shoot!"

It sort of, in the past, has made attempts to simulate what its like to be a mech pilot. It tries to bring things closer to reality than say, gundam where you fly in out space. But hypothetically, you could make a gundam simulator with the intent to simulate space physics, etc.

Simulator is not a strict term. It has generally described a genre. Some mechwarrior games fit better into that then others.

MWO generally, isnt much above mechassault. It plays a lot like mechwarrior 4 except with way more bugs, lag, and imbalance problems. I hated MW4 balance but MWO really takes the cake for failure.

MWO only has a good artist that did an excellent job with the reboot. PGI's record consists of failed games like bass pro. The studio has done a horrible job at a lot of things, but the artist's amazing work coupled with an amazing franchise is giving it enough breathing room to maybe one day be good.

[AEgg]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

TL;DR - this game is not a sim, please don't treat it as such.

I am curious about this term. Over the months I've seen people throw hissy fits and threaten to leave the game because "it is a sim which doesn't do this is this right" or argue than a third person camera would wreck the game because "it is a sim".

Some even go so far as to put themselves on a pedestal above games like Battlefield, Hawken etc because "those games players are playing games, we are playing a sim".

As a huge fan of the PMDG NGX, DCS A-10c and iRacing, I can pretty confidently stipulate that this game is not only not a sim, it is an extremely simple arcade shooter.

To be a simulation, first of all (I would argue) you have to be simulating something feasible (if not physically tangible at time of simulation). For example, the DCS software simulates the use of a real world aircraft with extreme accuracy. It comes with a 1k page + manual and is extremely complex to master. You can spend a week learning how to switch the aircraft on.

In iRacing, though relatively simple to get going, it will take you months (or years) to master the intricacies of the vehicle setups, carefully changing camber and brake bias, engine power etc to glean the best performance out of you car. A sim in the true sense of word, aerodynamics, mechanical strength, systems and failure, all modelled.

Though a simulation doesn't strictly have to be real world in the right here and right now sense - it is of course completely feasible than NASA would run a simulation using a hypothetical spacecraft landing on Mars - a completely theoretical mathematical model per se, but a simulation nonetheless.

I would love a mech simulator - it would come with a one thousand+ page manual and you could spend weeks learning about (admittedly fictional) leg hydaulics, another 300 pages on the computer systems, autopilot failure margins, IFF systems, radio systems, limits of inertia, the thermodynamic rules behind heat dissipation, logical reasons behind the shape and materials the mech was designed with...

Then, we could look into the interface and startup procedure. I'm reasonably sure to get a mech this size running would need a form of ground power, or maybe something similar to an APU. To get all the systems online and then to check they all work would take, maybe, 10-15 minutes? And what about emergency procedures..Fire in the left engine? Shut it down, initalise the fire suppresent system, initiate the APU because there isn't enough power from one engine to keep the weapons systems online.

The point I am making is, I often see people saying "this game isn't for the COD idiots, it requires brains" and then putting themselves on a pedestal of superiority - sure, maybe it requires more tactical thinking than COD, but I wouldn't argue for a second that it requires more than Counterstrike or Battlefield 3.

The game isn't a sim - playing this game does not make you 'superior' to other gamers. This game is a simple arcade game with robot lasers. A fun one, yes, but an arcade game nonetheless.

Your definition of the "sim" genre is different than common usage. Common usage defines a "sim" as anything that makes ANY attempt to fit the complexities of reality into a game, or even just a game with a sim feeling, which is a bit hard to define.

No one would consider the Burnout or Need for Speed (excluding Shift) series to be a sim, but it's commonly accepted that Gran Turismo and Forza are sims. Similarly, Armored Core and the various Gundam games aren't sims, but Mechwarrior and Chromehounds are.

The primary difference between a sim and an arcade game is level of abstraction in simply controlling your vehicle. When you turn left in Burnout, you will always go left. In Forza, turning left can result in any number of things, from turning as intended to sliding or spinning. Similarly, firing a weapon in a Gundam game simply fires the weapon at your target with zero other consequence. In Mechwarrior, that shot uses ammo, produces heat, may have a travel time, the weapon may jam, etc. The big difference between "Arcade" and "Sim" is how directly your inputs map to the onscreen actions. In an arcade game, your inputs map directly to actions. In a Sim, your inputs are affected by other, simulated, factors.

You can't really argue that one is more or less skilled or better or worse than the other. UT is one of the most highly skill-based games there is, and it's purely an arcade game. Gran Turismo is also a skill-based game, and i'ts definitively in the sim category. Some people like one category and some like the other or both.

[Jetfire]

AEgg, on 26 December 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

You can't really argue that one is more or less skilled or better or worse than the other. UT is one of the most highly skill-based games there is, and it's purely an arcade game. Gran Turismo is also a skill-based game, and i'ts definitively in the sim category. Some people like one category and some like the other or both.

Exactly, Sim vs Arcade vs Shooter is simply the intent of the game, not the degree to which skill is involved.

Sims tend to be higher in complexity or straight up learning curve to get comfortable with the simulation and its rules. MWO certainly has this and the lack of a good tutorial is all too telling.

Arcade games are designed for insert quarter, jump in action. They cannot tolerate the kinds of complexity a Sim has because they would be counter productive to the original intent of giving you brief entertainment in exchange for your change.

If MWO was not a SIM you would have no complaints about the tremendous amount of undocumented information and non-existent tutorials because they would have nothing to teach you.

[xRaeder]

PurpleNinja, on 26 December 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

It does, in MWO the armor is called "armor" and the penetration is called "damage".

Not sure if serious or trolling...

In order to simulate damage you need to take into account the size of the round... its velocity... the angle of impact... the thickness and quality or armor.

WW2OL does all this... MWO does not.

[Orzorn]

MWO is a sim, the question is how much. The answer is not a lot. You have to deal with ammo (most games have this), heat (most games do not have this), acceleration and deceleration (most games, especially shooters, do not have this), tonnage, crits, etc.

However, it lacks a lot of what you see in a high level sim, that is, a wide variety of controllable (And damageable) sub systems, radar, tracking, engines, various systems to extinguish fires and such, and all that fun stuff. It also lacks any more than the most basic of projectile physics (bullets fly in an arc, but do not penetrate, tumble, nor is damage simulated when they enter a mech, instead opting to use the TT crit roll system). Currently, it also does not track collisions, nor does it track or even allow damaged actuators.

Still, they are making steps in the right direction, such as allowing the raising and lowering of missile bay doors. When collisions and repair and rearm return (if they return), we'll also see all that. Hopefully they get around to implementing damageable actuators, life systems, sensors, etc. Additionally, the ability to jettison ammunition would be nice and also add to the sim aspect.

So far, out of all the Mechwarrior games, Mechwarrior 2 and Mercs were, by far, the most sim-like. You had a greater control over resources, such as jettisoning ammo, the ability to alter your radar (only for the purpose of it being easier to see just how close enemy mechs were to you), overhead satellites (which we may see in MWO at sometime in the near future), actuator damage, and all that. As someone else said, compare Mechwarrior 2 to other sims of the time and you'll see they were very similar in capabilities.

MWO's sim-ability also undoubtedly suffers from being an online game based upon the CryEngine. You can not similate all sorts of fine parts, bullet trajectories, tumbling, etc in this system, at least without intense altering of the engine, and then testing.

Overall, MWO doesn't set out to be any kind of game genre. It tries to be a Mechwarrior game, something I'd say its doing pretty well with so far (baring the abysmal balance. The feel itself is right. Your mechs are large, lumbering, and weighty). Still, I'd like to be able to press at least a few of the buttons in our cockpit!

[King Arthur IV]

xRaeder, on 26 December 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

Not sure if serious or trolling...

In order to simulate damage you need to take into account the size of the round... its velocity... the angle of impact... the thickness and quality or armor.

WW2OL does all this... MWO does not.

is that game any good? iv been thinking about trying it.

[Jetfire]

xRaeder, on 26 December 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

Not sure if serious or trolling...

In order to simulate damage you need to take into account the size of the round... its velocity... the angle of impact... the thickness and quality or armor.

WW2OL does all this... MWO does not.

Simulation has varying degrees. You need not simulate every variable to be performing a "simulation". MWO simulates fictional Mech Combat based on a fictional universe with rules designed to simulate combat in said fictional universe. How exactly does one model the impact of a fictional weapon on a fictional surface? I mean what is the effective MegaWatt rating of a Large Laser? What is the strength modulus of ferro fibrous? We don't know, so a fully mathematically modeled physics simulation is impossible. That doesn't make simulating fictional combat impossible.

[Orzorn]

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.

As much as I would love for all of this to happen, you must remember the target of this game is 15 minute matches in a multiplayer online format.

If it was singleplayer, sure, we could allow that, but we have to take SOME shortcuts in a multiplayer game. That isn't to say we couldn't have some good old switch flicking and diagnostics, but they're always going to be missing some of the steps you might expect in order to expediate the process.

As an aside, mechs don't have hydraulics. They use muscle-like myomer fibers to provide greater power and motor control.

[xRaeder]

Jetfire, on 26 December 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Simulation has varying degrees. You need not simulate every variable to be performing a "simulation". MWO simulates fictional Mech Combat based on a fictional universe with rules designed to simulate combat in said fictional universe. How exactly does one model the impact of a fictional weapon on a fictional surface? I mean what is the effective MegaWatt rating of a Large Laser? What is the strength modulus of ferro fibrous? We don't know, so a fully mathematically modeled physics simulation is impossible. That doesn't make simulating fictional combat impossible.

Yes but presumably things like armor thickness, round velocity, and angle of impact would still apply in 31st century combat. Battletech and thus Mechwarrior does not take this into account. Instead each weapon does a static amount of damage and each armor point... regardless of it's angle protects the same.

[Orzorn]

Jetfire, on 26 December 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Simulation has varying degrees. You need not simulate every variable to be performing a "simulation". MWO simulates fictional Mech Combat based on a fictional universe with rules designed to simulate combat in said fictional universe. How exactly does one model the impact of a fictional weapon on a fictional surface? I mean what is the effective MegaWatt rating of a Large Laser? What is the strength modulus of ferro fibrous? We don't know, so a fully mathematically modeled physics simulation is impossible. That doesn't make simulating fictional combat impossible.

Its most important to keep that in mind as well:
Mechwarrior games are a simulation of what it would be like to drive a mech...necessarily.

They're a simulation of the tabletop in real time. That means interpreting and putting in to real time as well as you can the rules of the TT, and then add a veneer of the mech lore that we read in the techmanual, the books, and other such sources.

So its a simulation, but what it is simulating is a table top game system, not a real life action or vehicle, as much as I'd enjoy for mechs to be real (and thus be able to be simulated with more accuracy).

Quote

Yes but presumably things like armor thickness, round velocity, and angle of impact would still apply in 31st century combat. Battletech and thus Mechwarrior does not take this into account. Instead each weapon does a static amount of damage and each armor point... regardless of it's angle protects the same.

But if they did that, we wouldn't be simulating the table top nearly as closely.

But then again, the current balance of some items (ECM) is probably as far from the TT as we can get.

Edited by Orzorn, 26 December 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[xRaeder]

King Arthur IV, on 26 December 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

is that game any good? iv been thinking about trying it.

I heard they went F2P finally... but I haven't played in about two years.

If you are good you can have a real impact on the game. I have saved towns numerous times by being in a Stug3g astride a road where the allies decided to tank rush. Popped so many Shermans it isn't funny.

[KingNobody]

MWO, the game that both is and is not a sim. It should have been called "Schrodinger's BattleMech"

[xRaeder]

For the record... this is what WW2OL does. It's a dated video from 5 years ago... but the concepts remain the same. Though the graphics have been updated significantly since then.

[Nightcrept]

I only refer to it as a sim in response to people who say learn to shoot or play the direct fire weapons need skill elitist type montra.

I use that term simply to verbalize the difference between the reltive easy pace and skill level required to shoot someone in this game compared to more twitch based fps's.

[Dirkdaring]

People have overlooked my post so I'll post again. THIS IS A SIM AND THIS IS WHY.

Go read what Btech 3056 MUSE was (or is if its still up - and all the others) and you will see why this is a sim.

Imagine joining a house and a unit, getting your own rank and mech. Imagine being on a massive world where it's being invaded by another house. Imagine going out on patrol, or escorting resource trucks from one place to another. Imagine running into a scout mech and after a long fight you blow its left torso off and win. Now you tow the mech back to your base and hand it off to the mechbay where they strip it of armor and parts to add to your houses stores. Your mech is down an hour for repairs when the alarm sounds that a heavy lance has been spotted heading for one of your supply stations...

Yes, this is absolutely a sim. That ^ is 'Real Space'. Imagine that and much much more.

[xRaeder]

Dirkdaring, on 26 December 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

People have overlooked my post so I'll post again. THIS IS A SIM AND THIS IS WHY.

Go read what Btech 3056 MUSE was (or is if its still up - and all the others) and you will see why this is a sim.

Imagine joining a house and a unit, getting your own rank and mech. Imagine being on a massive world where it's being invaded by another house. Imagine going out on patrol, or escorting resource trucks from one place to another. Imagine running into a scout mech and after a long fight you blow its left torso off and win. Now you tow the mech back to your base and hand it off to the mechbay where they strip it of armor and parts to add to your houses stores. Your mech is down an hour for repairs when the alarm sounds that a heavy lance has been spotted heading for one of your supply stations...

Yes, this is absolutely a sim. That ^ is 'Real Space'. Imagine that and much much more.

None of what you posted is relevant to what MWO is currently.

[Helbourne]

How about this... Its a simulation of the TT game in real time, in a first person view of the Mechwarrior, inside the cockpit of a battlemech.

Its not CoD or anything of the like.