73 replies to this topic

[Kmieciu]

Thorn Hallis, on 09 January 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

2 of the 4 SSRM6 launchers are facing the rear. Let's see if PGI will really put them in the front too.

An Atlas D has 2 rear facing Medium lasers in TT, but since MWO does not have rear camera they would be pretty hard to use :-)

Roland, on 09 January 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

This.
In past MW games, missile racks have usually been modeled as "Special" armor sections. Essentially auxillary panels.

I don`t remember past MW games having more armor locations. That would totally break TT rules.

Edited by Kmieciu, 09 January 2013 - 06:26 AM.

[Hellboy561]

Thorn Hallis, on 09 January 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

2 of the 4 SSRM6 launchers are facing the rear. Let's see if PGI will really put them in the front too.

Of course they will, Atlas models are known to have rear facing Lasers. But none of that in here

[Bishop Steiner]

Buck Cake, on 09 January 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

Canonicaly they are in side torsos.
Because of the was XL engines work in MWO, it could be worthwhile to give it 4 arms instead.

Other MW titles have done similar, with "launchers" having their own hit box.

I would still "link" it with the side torsos, maybe having it allocate 2/3 to the "main body" and a 1/3 automatically to the launcher?

That way, if you "ear" it, you don't damage the XL (which kinda makes more sense)

Not saying mine is a perfect answer by any means, but think it would be a workable "start"/

[Kmieciu]

Forgot to mention that stock Timber Wolf moves at the exact same speed as a Dragon. (86.4 km/h in TT = 81 km/h in MWO->89 km/h with speed tweek). Have fun targeting those side torsos.

Using my tricked-out Dragon with a Gauss Rifle, 4 Medium lasers and SRM6 I can score over 1000 damage in a round. A Timber Wolf is going to have over twice the firepower, and even more armor...

Edited by Kmieciu, 09 January 2013 - 06:34 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sayyid, on 09 January 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

Why wont they, they put two of the Atlas Medium lasers to the front of the CT, instead of CT®.

Same for the CN9-A, 1 Medium faces rear.

They have changed quite a few designes because they dont want review cameras. (or I think, cant figure it out.)

Apparently, the CryEngine has a hissy fit every time it has to work "multi-perspective" and I am guessing it to be too hard, or no one has figure out how to "simulate" the rear view (which is a dang shame, as I would love my proper rear firing weapons... and to know when a commando is trying to cop a feel of my backside)

[Roland]

Kmieciu, on 09 January 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

I don`t remember past MW games having more armor locations. That would totally break TT rules.

Turns out, it doesn't matter if you break table top rules.

We aren't playing a table top game.

Various mechs in MW4 had Aux. armor locations, which were generally the missile launchers.. the same went for things like the loki and thor's missile launchers.

In terms of game balance, it's necessary because otherwise you basically cripple those mechs... Being able to shoot a specific side torso, essentially from any angle around a mech, would make it almost impossible to soak damage... even more so than with the giant nose on the madcat.

This is one of those things where adhering to TT rules isn't going to get the job done... because in TT, you aren't aiming for sections.. you aren't able to maneuver to protect damaged locations.. the actual size of targets doesn't matter...

You need to realize that due to the difference in medium, you can't just slap TT rules onto mechwarrior and get anything good.

[Sayyid]

Roland, on 09 January 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

You need to realize that due to the difference in medium, you can't just slap TT rules onto mechwarrior and get anything good.

Why not, Mechwarrior and Battletech are interchangeble. And Mechwarrior comes from Battletech.

[MustrumRidcully]

Kmieciu, on 09 January 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

I bet people will swap ERPPC with Clan Gauss rifles that weigh only 12 tons and take LRM20s (5 tons each)

Depends on how they implement omni tech and hard points, doesn't it?

The thing with clan weapons however is - they don't produce more heat than IS weapons. An IS ER Large Laser or ER PPC causes the same heat. The difference is - the Clan weapon deals more damage and has more range or needs less crits and weight. So even if stock configurations with nerfed double heat sinks will suck, going Clan tech is never a bad move. The current ER PPC may be a commonly seen weapon in MW:O if it inflicted 15 damage instead of 10 damage per shot, and would weigh a ton less, and you had 2-crit double heat sinks.

Of course, if we had the Clan Gauss Rifle, there would be no need to use the Clan ER PPC, it would still be superior, of course.

The Mad Cat will be insanely hot in its standard configurations, but a customized Timber Wolf will benefit from all the superior tech.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 January 2013 - 07:02 AM.

[Dukarriope]

I actually want PGI to up the granularity of destruction - be able to individually damage weapons as parts and not just blow out side torsos when you shoot a weapon there... Like, what on earth did they do all this modelling for?


It'd make more sense for the Timber Wolf's launchers to be vulnerable and easily destroyed, but I don't really think they should blast the whole torso along with it. It makes sense from a tabletop game perspective where hits on sections are based on rolls, but not in an aimed FPS environ.

[bug3at3r]

I've been playing MW4 for the last few weeks, assuming its the same, the launchers will have their own hitbox and can be destroyed without nailing the actual side torso/engine.

Sayyid, on 09 January 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Why not, Mechwarrior and Battletech are interchangeble. And Mechwarrior comes from Battletech.

Because they've never been the same and never will. MW relies on actual aiming, TT, as fun as it is, relies on a dice roll. Frankly, I hate dice roll mechanics in video games.

Edited by bug3at3r, 09 January 2013 - 07:47 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

You've obviously never seen the WWWWWWWW bug.

it's a bug with the UI, I can't currently find a picture for it, however it cleary shows additional "Shoulder" pods.

It's possible these clan mechs will be given additional pods much like what we saw in MW4 for additional weapons space.

bug3at3r, on 09 January 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

I've been playing MW4 for the last few weeks, assuming its the same, the launchers will have their own hitbox and can be destroyed without nailing the actual side torso/engine.



Because they've never been the same and never will. MW relies on actual aiming, TT, as fun as it is, relies on a dice roll. Frankly, I hate dice roll mechanics in video games.

Same Universe... quit being buttdevistated.

[Sayyid]

bug3at3r, on 09 January 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

Because they've never been the same and never will. MW relies on actual aiming, TT, as fun as it is, relies on a dice roll. Frankly, I hate dice roll mechanics in video games.

You know the original Mechwarrior, not the Mechwarrior RPG that went with Battletech but the Original MECHWARRIOR.

That came out in 1989, developed by Dynamix and produced by Activision. Followed the Battletech game rules QUITE well and actually was the best Mechwarrior/Battletech game of the line of Mechwarriors, I still play it on an Emulator on my computer.

[Fenix0742]

Jade Kitsune, on 09 January 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

You've obviously never seen the WWWWWWWW bug.

it's a bug with the UI, I can't currently find a picture for it, however it cleary shows additional "Shoulder" pods.

It's possible these clan mechs will be given additional pods much like what we saw in MW4 for additional weapons space.

Delivered.

[WVAnonymous]

With rear facing SSRMs, at least you could fire blindly if you got a target lock, no rear-view camera required.

(If I really were crazy enough to drive a large bipedal armored vehicle, I'd have rear view mirrors all over the cockpit like Israeli F-16s.)

Firing a SSRM blind presumably would be feasible if someone really was parked in your six, no friendly fire risk. Heck, set it to auto-fire whenever it got a lock on a hostile inside of 270 meters.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Jade Kitsune, on 09 January 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

You've obviously never seen the WWWWWWWW bug.

it's a bug with the UI, I can't currently find a picture for it, however it cleary shows additional "Shoulder" pods.

It's possible these clan mechs will be given additional pods much like what we saw in MW4 for additional weapons space.

Correct you, also used to be able to force this by repeatedly shutting down and starting up whilst recording.

Open up in a video suite and slow the frames down so you watch frame by frame, as the HUD comes back online you could clearly see shoulder pad missile launchers on the paper doll display.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Fenix0742, on 09 January 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Delivered.

Thank you... yep this is the pic.

[Elizander]

They can just be redesigned to be more practical with the current setup.

[icey]

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

Roland, on 09 January 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

This.

In past MW games, missile racks have usually been modeled as "Special" armor sections. Essentially auxillary panels.

Yeah this is the best tried and tested way of implementing the timber wolfs missile racks. Making them part of the side torso would be a disaster.

[Khobai]

The missile racks SHOULD be part of the side torso. Anyone whining about it TOO BAD. The Mad Cat has enough freaking advantages over any IS mech as is. And its not like killing the side torso is going to kill the MadCat anyway. Clan XL doesnt work like that. Only IS XL has that awful downside.

Clan mechs should not get additional locations... and if they do make that dumb decision then out of fairness it needs to be applied retroactively to all existing mechs with side torso missile launchers. "Waa Waa. Its too easy to hit my Atlas in the side torso so I dont think the Atlas' missile launcher should count as part of the side torso either." I mean really.

Edited by Khobai, 09 January 2013 - 10:38 AM.