Jump to content

Let Us Side-Step/strafe.


257 replies to this topic

Poll: Side stepping / strafing (453 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think mechs should be able to strafe?

  1. Yes! Awesome! (71 votes [15.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.67%

  2. Voted No! I hate your idea! (352 votes [77.70%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 77.70%

  3. Other - discuss with a reply! (30 votes [6.62%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.62%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Rasako

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fp Veteran - Beta 1
  • Fp Veteran - Beta 1
  • 214 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 08:48 AM

View PostFierostetz, on 26 July 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

out of curiosity, why? I'd honestly like to hear various viewpoints on it. It would be handy for scouts, that's for sure. Or even the ability to lean to peek around corners.

because this is not call of duty or some silly *** arcade shooter you play on a console for light entertainment, this is a mech simulation game and mechs don't sidestep

#62 Lugh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 3,910 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 08:52 AM

turn legs to the 180degree point of where you will be firing ..twist torso to face where you are firing.

Step out. Fire, step back.

Mechanic request exist. Pilot error in achieving mechanical operation of mech per design detected.

#63 Clit Beastwood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:02 AM

View PostVolthorne, on 29 July 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

Wrong. 'Mechs are superior to tanks in being able to more easily traverse terrain that the tank cannot. Also being able to move faster (tracked vehicles can only move so fast before their treads become a liability).

Maneuvering comes into play when taking into account the skill of the pilot and/or his commander. If the machine is physically incapable of an action (in this case side-stepping), then most skilled pilot in the world still won't be able to make his machine perform said action.

As someone pointed out earlier, 'Mechs have hinged joints, not ball-and-socket.


How can they walk laterally across inclines then?

View PostLugh, on 29 July 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

turn legs to the 180degree point of where you will be firing ..twist torso to face where you are firing.

Step out. Fire, step back.

Mechanic request exist. Pilot error in achieving mechanical operation of mech per design detected.



[FAILURE TO READ PRIOR POSTS DETECTED]
[READY! FIRE! AIM!]

View PostRasako, on 29 July 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

because this is not call of duty or some silly *** arcade shooter you play on a console for light entertainment, this is a mech simulation game and mechs don't sidestep


Mechs don't sidestep... according to whom?

#64 Strum Wealh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 5,018 posts
  • LocationPittsburgh, PA

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:30 AM

View PostLord of All, on 29 July 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

Sorry but some random animation is not evidence if that was why you posted it. I can animate a model to do cartwheels, so we should allow Cartwheeling mechs now?

THERE ARE NO Ball ends in the hip joints. Learn some basic anatomy those that think you can sidestep without a ball in a fixed point.

If it's not a true ball joint, it needs to be something rather close.

As an example, here are the axes of rotation for the leg joints in Honda's Asimo:
Posted Image

For a BattleMech to be able to turn in place (as Asimo and similar humanoids (such as Sony's QRIO and Aldebaran's NAO) do... or as humans ourselves do, for that matter), the leg necessarily needs to be able to rotate about the vertical axis, as well as swing outward (that is, rotate about the longitudinal (front-to-back) axis). And, of course, rotation about the lateral (side-to-side) axis is required to be able to walk in the first place.

(Note the leg movements when the first unit turns in place and the second unit turns while transitioning from walking backward to walking forward in the segment from 1:36 to 1:56.)


(Note the turning motion from 0:37 to 0:41 and the leg motions from 1:01 to 1:11, the turning motion from 1:36 to 1:44, and the standing sequence from 2:15 to 2:26.)

Without that level of articulation, a BattleMech (with its relatively high center of gravity) would be unable to maintain its balance on anything other than terrain that is absolutely level and flat (which then defeats the point of using the legged platform in the first place).

While the TT rules didn't allow bipedal BattleMechs to side-step (a movement mode reserved for Quad 'Mechs), they would certainly have been capable of the motion in-universe.
Also, recall that TT did not allow any BattleMech to turn its torso more than 60 degrees in either direction (for a total range of 120 degrees), yet MWO allows several BattleMechs to do just that... :)

#65 Clit Beastwood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:50 AM

View PostStrum Wealh, on 29 July 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

If it's not a true ball joint, it needs to be something rather close.

As an example, here are the axes of rotation for the leg joints in Honda's Asimo:
Posted Image

For a BattleMech to be able to turn in place (as Asimo and similar humanoids (such as Sony's QRIO and Aldebaran's NAO) do... or as humans ourselves do, for that matter), the leg necessarily needs to be able to rotate about the vertical axis, as well as swing outward (that is, rotate about the longitudinal (front-to-back) axis). And, of course, rotation about the lateral (side-to-side) axis is required to be able to walk in the first place.

(Note the leg movements when the first unit turns in place and the second unit turns while transitioning from walking backward to walking forward in the segment from 1:36 to 1:56.)


(Note the turning motion from 0:37 to 0:41 and the leg motions from 1:01 to 1:11, the turning motion from 1:36 to 1:44, and the standing sequence from 2:15 to 2:26.)

Without that level of articulation, a BattleMech (with its relatively high center of gravity) would be unable to maintain its balance on anything other than terrain that is absolutely level and flat (which then defeats the point of using the legged platform in the first place).

While the TT rules didn't allow bipedal BattleMechs to side-step (a movement mode reserved for Quad 'Mechs), they would certainly have been capable of the motion in-universe.
Also, recall that TT did not allow any BattleMech to turn its torso more than 60 degrees in either direction (for a total range of 120 degrees), yet MWO allows several BattleMechs to do just that... :)


Thanks for putting so much thought into your reply, it sums up how a mech would actually *have to* work vs. how the TT rules allow for. I've noticed in most artwork, and in many of the miniatures, mechs are depicted with their legs splayed for stability, or one leg forward with the other behind with the ankle twisted for stability. - a greater level of articulation would be required for this stance, and hip flexion would be required to traverse uneven ground. I edited my original post to deflect some of the COD/Hawken replies, and further informed replies such as yours should help to quell some of the other chatter.

The nau robot is awesome. Want.

#66 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,009 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:54 AM

I voted no, but may change my mind. I don't want bunny hopping and side strafing.

Things that actually put the actuators to work would be great, and a slow 1 step-side step or lean or small hop(followed by a moment of re-balancing) would be okay IMO. What I don't want would be serious movement without re positioning the legs in that direction.

I would love to see mechs take a knee to stabilize, crouch or climb given proper actuators and geometry.

I would love to see a factory raid where the offensive mechs had to pick up and carry (or attach and sled drag) objects... giving mechs with hand actuators some love as they wouldn't need to drag a sled. Think capture the flag, but with giant stompy robots... lots of ways to do a mode that.

#67 Clit Beastwood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:56 AM

I'd like to see weapons like the AC/20 actually have some sort of kick - think of an animation where an atlas leans forward to compensate for the kick. But then again, there's no accuracy penalty for firing while moving, so :shrug:

the animations would be neat though :)

#68 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,009 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 29 July 2013 - 10:08 AM

I think recoil would be amazing and could be used to balance the really large weapons. PPC's were supposed to have a big kick along with ballistics.

I'd love to see a moving stalker knocked down by firing quad ppcs at one time.

#69 Mackman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 July 2013 - 10:30 AM

"It would totally tone down snipers, because you could dodge the shots! Just think: Sidestep out, shoot, and sidestep back in! It's perfect!"

Think a bout what you said. Just think about it for a bit. This is nothing less than a full and complete buff to snipers, because it'd allow them to snipe with even less risk. And for it to allow you to actually dodge shots? That'd have to be damn near instantaneous, dude.

#70 Clit Beastwood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 29 July 2013 - 10:41 AM

As I've stated a few times, it could serve as a "quirk" for, say, mediums. They're not maneuverable/fast enough to dodge in some cases, and they're not heavily armored enough to deflect or absorb a high pinpoint alpha. So, giving them a quirk to let them shift from side to side while still orienting their legs forward could help them close to a distance where they have a chance. I think the strafing ability should be either restricted to lighter classes, or should be much slower with heavier mechs.

#71 Mackman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 July 2013 - 10:47 AM

View PostFierostetz, on 29 July 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

As I've stated a few times, it could serve as a "quirk" for, say, mediums. They're not maneuverable/fast enough to dodge in some cases, and they're not heavily armored enough to deflect or absorb a high pinpoint alpha. So, giving them a quirk to let them shift from side to side while still orienting their legs forward could help them close to a distance where they have a chance. I think the strafing ability should be either restricted to lighter classes, or should be much slower with heavier mechs.


That does sound like a lot of fun. But my prized Trebuchet weighs 50 tons, dude: I don't think a 50-ton mech could possibly dance side-to-side like that while still moving forward. Could the lightest of light mechs do it? Maybe. But not anything heavier than that: Otherwise, the mechs would lose all sense of weight and heft.

#72 Clit Beastwood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 29 July 2013 - 10:59 AM

View PostMackman, on 29 July 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:


That does sound like a lot of fun. But my prized Trebuchet weighs 50 tons, dude: I don't think a 50-ton mech could possibly dance side-to-side like that while still moving forward. Could the lightest of light mechs do it? Maybe. But not anything heavier than that: Otherwise, the mechs would lose all sense of weight and heft.


:sigh:

One step. While stopped. I don't know how to encourage everyone to read the prior posts, and nobody will likely read this, but what can you do.

#73 Belorion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 5,340 posts
  • LocationEast Coast

Posted 29 July 2013 - 11:03 AM

View PostTyphoon Storm 2142, on 29 July 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

If you can't tell that running forward and twisting the torso by 90 degrees is not strafing...well. I feel sorry for you.



There is no situation where the mech being able to move laterally would offer any advantage over torso twisting + normal movement.

#74 Lord of All

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationBottom Of a Bottle

Posted 29 July 2013 - 11:51 AM

View PostStrum Wealh, on 29 July 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

If it's not a true ball joint, it needs to be something rather close.

As an example, here are the axes of rotation for the leg joints in Honda's Asimo:
Posted Image

For a BattleMech to be able to turn in place (as Asimo and similar humanoids (such as Sony's QRIO and Aldebaran's NAO) do... or as humans ourselves do, for that matter), the leg necessarily needs to be able to rotate about the vertical axis, as well as swing outward (that is, rotate about the longitudinal (front-to-back) axis). And, of course, rotation about the lateral (side-to-side) axis is required to be able to walk in the first place.

(Note the leg movements when the first unit turns in place and the second unit turns while transitioning from walking backward to walking forward in the segment from 1:36 to 1:56.)


(Note the turning motion from 0:37 to 0:41 and the leg motions from 1:01 to 1:11, the turning motion from 1:36 to 1:44, and the standing sequence from 2:15 to 2:26.)

Without that level of articulation, a BattleMech (with its relatively high center of gravity) would be unable to maintain its balance on anything other than terrain that is absolutely level and flat (which then defeats the point of using the legged platform in the first place).

While the TT rules didn't allow bipedal BattleMechs to side-step (a movement mode reserved for Quad 'Mechs), they would certainly have been capable of the motion in-universe.
Also, recall that TT did not allow any BattleMech to turn its torso more than 60 degrees in either direction (for a total range of 120 degrees), yet MWO allows several BattleMechs to do just that... :P


Very good post. While a mechanical joint CAN be made to work in this fashion those in BT are not so designed. It must be some future technological reason. :)

#75 Redwood Elf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 179 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:07 PM

View PostLord of All, on 29 July 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:


Very good post. While a mechanical joint CAN be made to work in this fashion those in BT are not so designed. It must be some future technological reason. :)


My guess would be Ease of maintainance. The more complex a joint is, the harder it would be to repair/service.

#76 Mackman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:09 PM

View PostFierostetz, on 29 July 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:


:sigh:

One step. While stopped. I don't know how to encourage everyone to read the prior posts, and nobody will likely read this, but what can you do.


View PostFierostetz, on 29 July 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

As I've stated a few times, it could serve as a "quirk" for, say, mediums. They're not maneuverable/fast enough to dodge in some cases, and they're not heavily armored enough to deflect or absorb a high pinpoint alpha. So, giving them a quirk to let them shift from side to side while still orienting their legs forward could help them close to a distance where they have a chance. I think the strafing ability should be either restricted to lighter classes, or should be much slower with heavier mechs.


How does shifting one step to the side, while stationary, help mediums close distance to snipers? That doesn't make any sense, dude!

#77 Volthorne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,929 posts
  • LocationCalgary, Canadia

Posted 29 July 2013 - 02:23 PM

View PostFierostetz, on 29 July 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

How can they walk laterally across inclines then?


Apparently you didn't understand my first post, otherwise you wouldn't be asking this again. You don't need a ********* ball-and-socket hip joint to bend your knee. Bending the uphill knee lets you walk laterally across a sloped suface as if it was flat. PROBLEM ******* SOLVED.

#78 Clit Beastwood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:12 PM

View PostVolthorne, on 29 July 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:


Apparently you didn't understand my first post, otherwise you wouldn't be asking this again. You don't need a ********* ball-and-socket hip joint to bend your knee. Bending the uphill knee lets you walk laterally across a sloped suface as if it was flat. PROBLEM ******* SOLVED.


I'll keep asking until you actually come up with a realistic answer, to be honest. I read your reply and immediately disregarded it. Go laterally traverse a slope without moving your hips, then come back and reply. I'd recommend keeping quiet until then. You probably won't, but it's still my recommendation. Until you do, and realize that you can't do it without pivoting your hips (thats why your spinal column is flexible, by the way), you're just trolling.

#79 Clit Beastwood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:22 PM

Of note, if anyone has access to Gray's Anatomy, go look at the human hip joint. It's fascinating how much movement that ball and socket is responsible for. The design of the human hip is why we're capable of certain types of moment, and why single axis joints can't replicate human movement properly (asimo, for example, walks like it poo'd in its pants because of this) - side flexion is required for maintaining balance. If mechs *didn't* have side flexion, they would only be able to walk on flat surfaces. This is all moot, really, but I'd hoped to provoke a little thought on the subject.

#80 Strum Wealh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 5,018 posts
  • LocationPittsburgh, PA

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:33 PM

View PostViktor Drake, on 29 July 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

Maybe someone can find those internal schematics of the Clan mechs that used to come in poster formate and find out.

Here is the cutaway for the Mad Cat:
Posted Image

Here is the cutaway for the Vulture:
Posted Image

Here is the cutaway for the Atlas (not a Clan 'Mech, but here it is anyway):
Posted Image

Here is a larger version of the cutaway for the Warhammer:
Posted Image

Here is a cutaway for the BattleMaster:
Posted Image

Here is a different cutaway for the Mad Cat:
Posted Image





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users