Jump to content

Lams


68 replies to this topic

Poll: LAMS (82 member(s) have cast votes)

LAMs

  1. OMG YES (23 votes [28.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.05%

  2. OMG CRAZY (59 votes [71.95%])

    Percentage of vote: 71.95%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 PropagandaWar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,495 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:40 PM

View PostGhogiel, on 07 October 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Both of the toy lines that transformers was based on dates to pre Macross.

Yeah Takara and some other spinoffs. In fact Shockwave was from another company entirely. Hasbro was shown the toys got the license then added a story line creating the "Transformers" universe. However that process didn't start until about 1983 and the cartoon came out in 1985.

#22 Dawnstealer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 3,734 posts
  • LocationBlack Earth

Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:42 PM

View PostCaptain Stiffy, on 04 October 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:


We totally do though. The mechanic of being able to relocate yourself quickly on the battlefield would make some of these utterly massive maps actually playable. The transformation effect and flight ability are extra funtiem. The loadouts wouldn't be extremely different from what mechs have now.

Implementing this is really just a physics effect (flight) and some modeling work.

Yeah, I'd think, if they're having problems with mechs going over 151kph, they'd have a similar problem with air-mechs going over 1000kph.

#23 Navy Sixes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationHeading west

Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:44 PM

I've never been a big LAM user, but I don't have the deep hatred for them that others do. I don't think it would be that hard to do a few mechs that could take 10 seconds to switch to guardian mode (Aerospace mode is out, I think) and enjoy a really really really slow expenditure of jump-fuel and in-jump manuverability, at the cost of all armor reduced by half.

I'd be for it just to see a few matches without assaults for once.

It would be something new and everyone would use them for a while. Then everyone would complain about how vulnerable ("broken") they are and most people would quit using them. A few will stick with them, learn how to make them rock, and just about everyone else will hate them.

Same as every other new mech.

#24 James The Fox Dixon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,572 posts
  • LocationEpsilon Indi

Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:56 PM

View PostGhogiel, on 07 October 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Both of the toy lines that transformers was based on dates to pre Macross.


Actually, that is incorrect. The toy lines that Hasbro bought were Diaclone and Micro Change, from the New Microman line, for release in 1984. Diaclone was produced in 1980 and Micro Change in 1982. This was after SDF Macross began production in 1979.

An interesting fact is that Shoji Kawamori and Kazutaka Miyatake from Studio Nue designed the vehicles for Diaclone. Both of them worked on SDF Macross in designing the mecha and ships in the series.

View PostTycho von Gagern, on 07 October 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

I've never been a big LAM user, but I don't have the deep hatred for them that others do. I don't think it would be that hard to do a few mechs that could take 10 seconds to switch to guardian mode (Aerospace mode is out, I think) and enjoy a really really really slow expenditure of jump-fuel and in-jump manuverability, at the cost of all armor reduced by half.

I'd be for it just to see a few matches without assaults for once.

It would be something new and everyone would use them for a while. Then everyone would complain about how vulnerable ("broken") they are and most people would quit using them. A few will stick with them, learn how to make them rock, and just about everyone else will hate them.

Same as every other new mech.


Well, LAMs have less armor, but nowhere near the half armor you suggest. They can mount armor up to their weight class. The conversion equipment is 10% of the mass of the mech, so it would have to make sacrifices in weapons and speed in addition to armor.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 07 October 2013 - 12:59 PM.


#25 Ghogiel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • 6,852 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:03 PM

View PostJames The Fox Dixon, on 07 October 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:


An interesting fact is that Shoji Kawamori and Kazutaka Miyatake from Studio Nue designed the vehicles for Diaclone. Both of them worked on SDF Macross in designing the mecha and ships in the series.


Those 2 designers went onto design for macross after work on the takara toy line.

#26 Navy Sixes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationHeading west

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

View PostJames The Fox Dixon, on 07 October 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Well, LAMs have less armor, but nowhere near the half armor you suggest. They can mount armor up to their weight class. The conversion equipment is 10% of the mass of the mech, so it would have to make sacrifices in weapons and speed in addition to armor.


Yeah, I just put that out there. I wasn't exactly sure what the numbers were; it's been a while since I've looked at them, you understand. I don't think it's realistic to expect LAMs to operate straight along TT parameters in MWO, but it's a good place to start as any. I'd expect a whole lot of buff/nerf/buff tweaking to follow its introduction to the game.

#27 James The Fox Dixon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,572 posts
  • LocationEpsilon Indi

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:09 PM

View PostGhogiel, on 07 October 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

Those 2 designers went onto design for macross after work on the takara toy line.


Funny, but their biographies say differently.

Quote

Shoji Kawamori occasionally used the alias Eiji Kurokawa (黒河影次 Kurokawa Eiji) early in his anime career when he started as a teenager intern member of Studio Nue and worked as assistant artist and animator there during the late seventies and early eighties. Later on his career Kawamori created or co-created the concepts which served as basis for such notable anime series as The Super Dimension Fortress Macross

The Super Dimension Fortress Macross - Original Series Concept Creator, Production Supervisor, Mechanical Designer
Link


Quote

One of Miyatake's most famous designs is the SDF-1 Macross spacecraft.

The Super Dimension Fortress Macross (1982) - mechanical designer
Link


Quote

Originally proposed in 1979 to capitalize in the great success of Mobile Suit Gundam, the show created by Studio Nue[8] (from an original concept by member Shoji Kawamori)[7] was sponsored by a group called the "Wiz" (Uizu) Corporation, who was prepared to fund a 48-episode run.
Link

SDF Macross debuted in Japan in 1982.

Quote

When Macross debuted on October 3, 1982 (with only three episodes made so far), its stunning success among Japanese television audiences convinced Big West to approve an extension to 36 episodes, allowing the staff to end with the "two years after" story arc.
Link

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 07 October 2013 - 01:11 PM.


#28 Ghogiel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • 6,852 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:21 PM

Yeah your right, they were contracted from studio Nue in 1979. They worked on the 1980released toyline.

Which dates even those toys years prior to macross's release.

Edited by Ghogiel, 07 October 2013 - 01:22 PM.


#29 James The Fox Dixon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,572 posts
  • LocationEpsilon Indi

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:23 PM

View PostGhogiel, on 07 October 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

Yeah your right, they were contracted from studio Nue in 1979. They worked on the 1980released toyline.

Which dates even those toys years prior to macross's release.


But not before SDF Macross began production. That is what I stated and people argued that I was wrong. SDF Macross came first then the other lines.

#30 Ghogiel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • 6,852 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:25 PM

View PostJames The Fox Dixon, on 07 October 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:


But not before SDF Macross began production. That is what I stated and people argued that I was wrong. SDF Macross came first then the other lines.

Those toy lines predate 1979 though.

#31 James The Fox Dixon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,572 posts
  • LocationEpsilon Indi

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:35 PM

View PostGhogiel, on 07 October 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Those toy lines predate 1979 though.


Not the ones used by Hasbro for Transformers. The vehicles and ships from Diaclone came after Macross in 1980, so no, they do not predate 1979.

Reference: http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Diaclone

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 07 October 2013 - 01:38 PM.


#32 LauLiao

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:46 PM

You KNOW it was a bad idea when FASA themselves were like "What were we THINKING? Get rid of these!"

#33 Ghogiel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • 6,852 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:50 PM

View PostJames The Fox Dixon, on 07 October 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:


Not the ones used by Hasbro for Transformers. The vehicles and ships from Diaclone came after Macross in 1980, so no, they do not predate 1979.

Reference: http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Diaclone

Stop comparing the release date of one with the concept or proposal of the other.

Quick break down.

The release date of the toyline> 1980
The release date of macross> 1982

proposal date of macross is 1979
proposal/design date of diaclone toyline> Those 2 macross designers worked on the toyline in the late 70's. IE 1979

"During the late seventies and early eighties Shoji Kawamori helped to create several of the original Transformers: Generation 1 toy designs. Among them the first Optimus Prime ("Convoy") toy design, Prowl, Bluestreak, Smokescreen, Ironhide and Ratchet. Over 20 years later, he returned to Transformers by designing both the Hybrid Style Convoy and the Masterpiece version of Starscream for Takara."

sauce:
http://en.wikipedia..../Shoji_Kawamori

Edited by Ghogiel, 07 October 2013 - 01:51 PM.


#34 Otto Cannon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,689 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:13 PM

Came here hoping for a thread about Laser Anti Missile Systems and was disappointed to find an argument about transformers.

#35 James The Fox Dixon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,572 posts
  • LocationEpsilon Indi

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:39 PM

View PostGhogiel, on 07 October 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

Stop comparing the release date of one with the concept or proposal of the other.

Quick break down.

The release date of the toyline> 1980
The release date of macross> 1982

proposal date of macross is 1979
proposal/design date of diaclone toyline> Those 2 macross designers worked on the toyline in the late 70's. IE 1979

"During the late seventies and early eighties Shoji Kawamori helped to create several of the original Transformers: Generation 1 toy designs. Among them the first Optimus Prime ("Convoy") toy design, Prowl, Bluestreak, Smokescreen, Ironhide and Ratchet. Over 20 years later, he returned to Transformers by designing both the Hybrid Style Convoy and the Masterpiece version of Starscream for Takara."

sauce:
http://en.wikipedia..../Shoji_Kawamori


Actually, I can compare the two. Either way, Diaclone was exported into the US and was a failure. It wasn't until they debuted as the Transformers in 1984 that they became a success.

Quote

Before the Transformers brand was introduced, Takara directly exported some Diaclone toys to North America under the brand names Diakron and Kronoform, but those lines met with very little success.
Link

Macross was a success in the US before it got butchered by Harmony Gold and turned into Robodreck.

#36 Ghogiel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • 6,852 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:52 PM

View PostJames The Fox Dixon, on 07 October 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:


Actually, I can compare the two.

Yeah I saw that. It made me lol.

#37 Zerberus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,488 posts
  • LocationUnder the floorboards looking for the Owner`s Manual

Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:01 PM

I specifically asked about the implementation of LAMS about 4-5 months ago in AtD, ehm... 33? 36? something like that...

The answer was a firm and definite NO. not NeverTM .

Edited by Zerberus, 07 October 2013 - 03:05 PM.


#38 Lexx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clamps
  • The Clamps
  • 740 posts
  • LocationSlung below a mech's arm shooting nothing but dirt

Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:13 PM

In order for a LAM to work we would first have to add aerospace fighters to the game. LAMs have a fighter mode so they would have to already have the flight mechanics worked out first. (that's a LOT of work)

In airmech mode LAMS could almost hover, or circle slowly above you at 1000 meters hurling LRMs down onto your mech. You couldn't even aim up enough to target them. Is that what you want to see in the game?

#39 Hellcat420

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,519 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:16 PM

View PostCaptain Stiffy, on 04 October 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

It could happen. Right?

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

they would never work in this game. hell they dont really work well in battletech at all. they suck against both other mechs and against other aerospace fighters. they were only good for scouting really and maybe anti infantry.

#40 PenitentTangent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 183 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 05:37 PM

Damnit, I thought this was for Laser AMS....





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users