StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 12:43pm 

He look another (WESTERN ROBOT) game that looks more exciting than MWO.





like just look at them side by side

How can they be going with this?

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 12:59pm 

Is any of these better games: a) released and b) available for the PC and c) works on windows XP?

Also, call me crazy but I would actually love to see both types of gameplay in the same game. Have a map like in the 1st game but add heavy and assault mechs to it as well. Imagine this game: The light models zap around the map shooting each other, taking out turrets and scouting. The heavy and assault missile boats like the longbow and catapult stand back and wait for target designation escorted by mediums. Meanwhile, along the cities vital points like the spaceports a band of assaults holds down the fort waiting for the inevitable onslaught and a chance to play turret on legs (basically the equivalent of a CS player with a sniper rifle). And while all that happens player and NPC controlled tanks and other vehicles roam the battlefields looking for people to killfuck and scoot.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 03:45pm 

MW should have both, only problems introduced in the early games means it's not practical. People honestly say 'get used to being one-hit killed if you're less than 50t' and 'legging so cool' and such. Since MW2 invented a lot of problems and nobody wants to change them (or will whine like bitches if they do) the licence is stuck with stuff like MWO where regardless of thier actual design they have to sell it by saying 'wow look how close to MW2 this is! MUST BE GOOD THEN!'

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 04:30pm 

I say it can be made practical just fine. It just takes some effort to do. On a related note, I would love to see how MW would work out if it was updated to take notice of things that changed from when it was conceived. I am talking about guided ATGM's, smoke deploying light mechs running around, catapults deploying micro UAV's to scout targets for them and stuff like that. Make the robots less 1920's land battleships and more 2020 tank but on feet.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 04:36pm 

Then you need combined arms which could be done easily enough. I think the Warhawk and Starhawk games are pretty prime examples of how combined arms can be integrated into a game even when a single type of vehicle (the hawks) is the star of the show.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 04:58pm 

It's like you're not even listening. Of course you can do it; but the realtime games have never been designed in a way that supports it, and they're so self consciously backwards-looking I don't think that's going to change.

By contrast heaps of other robit games have no problems creating niches for small robots, even in very small groups. I'd much rather see actual combined arms; choppers and infantry and actually trying to so something beyond 'kill all the mans' against flexible and reactive opposition. Of course, much simpler games can't do that, so in a helicopter with legs game it's asking a bit much.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 05:01pm 

What I would do first thou is simply up the armor on the legs. Simply say that since the legs are small and all rounded like or what ever (sloped edges and other stuff like that) the armor is actually very sloped most of the time regardless from which direction you hit it. Thus making leg armor SUPER EFFECTIVE. Que legs being the toughest part of any mech. Problem solved.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 05:59pm 

Do you seriously not see how that's a clumsy bandaid on a fundamental mechanical problem? Why not actually solve those problems with things like indirect targeting, abstracted armour values, better animation and agility, breaking up spike DPS, etc?

It's because it has to be like MW2, isn't it? Case : closed.

The best part is thy leg characteristics are actually a far larger part of other robit games that totally avoid legging through mixtures of he above approaches. These systems are often more complex and more characterful and yet lack dumb shit like 'I put my pixel on your pixel and you instantly died'.

I changed legs last night and my agility and speed has increased while my boost performance has suffered. That's a tradeoff, but a more serious problem is the lower stability and thus vulnerability to large impacts knocking them off balance. I've conpensated by changing the head to improve stability control and shifted weapons to a more close-range style where big hits are less likely, and I think it'll do well.

Contrat with MW for lols.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 06:04pm 

For your information. I have newer even plaid MW2 or even 3 in my life.
The reason why I suggested what you call a bandaid is because its a quick and dirty solution to the problem that does not require insanely large amounts of work or talent on behalf of the guys making the game. If duck tape does the job just fine screw it and duck.

And besides. It's the only solution with an even remote chance of being implemented as opposed to the good stuff.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 06:10pm 

It doesn't need 'talent' to fix it; they just have to want too and they clearly don't, because their market is people who played MW2-4. Their forums are full of great stuff.

Making a good game has never been hard, but people have always listened to the shrieking fatties who need their HEADSHOTS alphastrike cheese. The mentality discussed earlier, where MW fans honestly think their games are complex simulators and their robots are superior plausibility for adults hard stuff, is why it's probably impossible to make a not-crap game with the licence. It's just funny ecause there are so many better games that are apparently 'simplistic', because in doublethink 'good' is measured by 'nearness to MW'.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 07:04pm 

The quip about the green health bars is the best because Mechwarrior never did anything like that right? Oh wait you had the alternate health bar display for your hitpoint boxes in every game since MW2 :v

To be honest Purple, those MWO forum guys really HATE MW4 for removing the legging (even though there was still damage transfer) and changing the Mechlab to something that resembled a legitimate GUI instead of a fucking spreadsheet.

I hope the new game has a real time in-game Mechlab so you can measure your customizing in APMs.

Yesterday I had some mates over and we played a bunch of Votoms games (which aren't in English) and had a ton of fun because they're easy to pickup and play.

Well except for the one PSX Votoms game that is basically Mechwarriorized with shitty fiddling with energy bars that drain each time you move and dash which is like someone read a source book about Votoms without realizing the combat in the show is very fluid and brutal :3

My one friend it was literally just walking around and shooting like a MW game XD

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 07:38pm 

I was there when MW4 came out and the nerdrage was exceptional.

It's funny to laugh at them hating MW4 for trying to fix fundamental problems (badly, but trying) and Mech Assault for being FOR BABIES for having decent controls.

Man in ACV you can totally build a heavy biped that is massively slow, will tend to stop to fire and shrugs off rains of bullets.

But you can ALSO make a flying tank or sniper spider or whatever. Because it's so DUMBED DOWN with it's pages of statistics and moderately complex synergies and knock-on effects.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 07:40pm 

Actually, when you think about how 'ruthless' the fans are (ie 'get used to headshots SMUG' and 'alpha legging is PART OF THE GAME NOOB') I bet that's why they don't like other 'rulesets'.

Because in AC (for instance) you can build a MW-style robot... but its weaknesses are such that its not competitive outside a niche (or with well-chosen armour).

Whereas in MW, that one sort of robot (deep hitpoints, 20 medium lasers) is the best around, so they can build the same robot for 30 years and feel TOUGH AND RUTHLESS ON NOOBS.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-25 07:55pm 

Yeah the posturing is rather baffling and sad. It's amazing how many of them when confronted with different people voicing the same concerns over and over, they revert back to "you just suck at the game."

Some of their answers to it are kinda funny like "don't expose your legs!" or "don't attack a bigger robot!" or even "use terrain for cover!"

Like guys, these are all tactics you can do in other games but not MW because you have to deal with torso twisting a throttles for walking :v

The throttle thing is just... why? Have you ever seen a person vary their throttle while jogging XD

I'm still playing with MW4 Mercs just for frustrating lulz and I literally remapped the game to about 8 buttons plus the mouse. Honestly all you ever needed for speed was stop, half, full, and reverse.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 01:47am 

Fixing the 'I instantly fire 10 Medium Lasers at you and blow up your legs' is really, really goddamn simple.

When firing a group of weapons, stagger the shots. So when you fire 8 Medium Lasers, it'll do two at a time, with a half second between them. This won't affect PPCs, or missiles or autocannons at all. Just those stupid laserboats. But a boat of spamming small weapons becomes a wild salvo wagon.

Plus add more emphasis in stuff like crouching damnit. MW3 had surprising arm motions, just need to be able to raise arms, so you could fight 'torso down' behind cover.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 01:57am 

People have made that suggestion exactly ont he MWO forums, and the nerds hate it. Alphastrikes are PART OF THE GAME, even when people point out the fluff is explicitly otherwise most of the time.

Because it isn't about Btech or Mechwarriors or clan invasions; it's about MW3 and making it over and over again.

Heavy Gear 2 had heaps of posture stuff and while it was overcomplicated button-wise it gave you everything from skating to crouching to running low.

And sorry the combat in the trailer looks appallingly boring. COMMENCE FLASHLIGHT BOMBARDMENT.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 02:39am 

Hah. You can outpuritan them though!

In Battletech, all weapons will only hit the same spot if the mech is equipped with an Advanced Targetting Computer (not available in 3050), and suffers a -2 to hit penalty! So if you want super flashlight action, add like 8 tons worth of Computer to your 16 medium Lasers!

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 03:01am 

But because MW2 was a really primitive shooter masquerading as a simulator, Acura y is just a matter of pixels and everyone in the novels is just dumb.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 08:13am 

Treating laser weapons like a special case is really just ignoring the problem that the whole damage model has been broken since 1989.

Even if you tried to stagger laser fire, you'd have to go totally in depth to try to stop people from abusing chain fire, ripple fire, or simple having a group for each laser and switching weapons really quickly.

And even then they'll just find another weapon that is easy to boat with because aiming is still piss easy against slow jogging robots. Not everyone playing MW3 did lasers. Online there were plenty of LB-X and missile boaters as well.

Almost every solution from an MWO forum goer and even the dev staff seems to be focused on not fixing the stupid hitpoint chunk system but elaborate ways to making weapons harder to aim. Because everything else would violate the canonz or something.



You mean like context sensitive cover systems XD

Also yeah MW3's arm motions were surprising to anyone who hadn't played Armored Core like a year prior :3

Arm moving around to track targets instead of the moving the entire torso? What is this witchcraft!?

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 08:36am 

Yeah. The more they gimp aiming and shooting in the game the more battles will degenerate into arms' length torso twist brawls. Fire control is something you want to get closer too, not farther.

Besides for all their claims of changing how aiming works the videos reveal it's not true at all.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 09:35am 

Back when I used to be into flight simulators, I recall even the AC-130's guns in Fighters Anthology would autotrack your selected target. Even the few times I tried out demos for gunship and tank sims, they all had autotracking to replace the need to control the gunner. Must be super dumbed down for consoles PCs.

Probably the best way to convince those one the fence on weather MW was a sim, is to point out that even Armored Core handles weight and momentum more realistically than any MW game.

Adding some kind of real physicality to the jogging turrets would probably ruin the 1995ness of the franchise :v

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 12:14pm 

"I hate hate hate the way Armored Core handles weight. It's just an implied limit that you can go over or under and affect the performance of your NEXT in battle appropriately. MW is superior because it's just a number you can't go over and being under it means nothing."

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 01:04pm 

I love how MW handle weapon ranges. Flashlight guns that disappear after 800 meters and missiles that snake around slowly until they hit. Like one guy suggested using just the laser weapons to shoot down missiles but a robomoron said "you'd be super lucky to shoot down missiles!"

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 02:18pm 

Even better: A gatling anti-missile system can spend a half ton of 20mm Ammo to shoot down like, 6 missiles out of a 20 missile salvo. This is why they use giant salvos of tiny missiles instead of one big one (plus how the weird armor system works)

...except then they developed one big missile that is armored (?!?!) enough to resist anti-missile systems, and directly comparable to the little swarm launchers.

 Post subject: Re: MWO video discussion

Posted: 2012-03-26 02:25pm 

I thought they fired 20 missiles because they have Ace Combat missile technology~

also didn't it take them about 300 years to figure out that radar + minigun = missile defense :v