Jump to content

Run Faster Without Arms

Gameplay

57 replies to this topic

#41 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:10 PM

Imagine Zombie Cent without arms. :P

#42 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:11 PM

View PostYeonne Greene, on 01 September 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

I'm not really saying the 'Mechs in the game should move faster with less weight or missing limbs, just that the mechanics of BattleTech are, at every turn, so terribly inaccurate, unrealistic, and generally mangled that the lore is hard to take seriously at all. The whole thing is just goofy; they couldn't even come up with a good reason why BattleMechs are a thing when tanks can mount the same weapons for less cost and complexity.


Mechs are quite a bit more agile and tanks are easily tracked.
Though from what I experienced, aside from locomotion issues tanks can be blatantly superior ton for ton. That is until a Battlemech gets close, and well, there isn't much a tank can do when things get real.

This 100 ton tank got tracked on the first shot. It is pure stock with the support of the Commando who gets vaporized in this move. The Enforcers are competition quality (as are all UK-designated mechs; unofficial min/maxed b.s.), and the Atlas is the quad-shotgun special of overpowered instant-kill goodness.
Posted Image

The tank. Note these are not of this specific variant of it.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Still, it had 6 kills. Five of them were 50 ton Enforcers. (I rather liked this art).
Posted Image
And one was the Atlas.
Posted Image
(The tank's armaments were 2 AC/10s mounted on the turret and 4 LRM-5s mounted on the front of the tank. Zero F's given for the minimum range as it's an accuracy modifier not 'zomg less than 180 meters you don't do damage'!)
--------------
Typically though every faction has a lot more tanks than they have mechs. Most Battletech combat from a lore perspective is fought with vehicles, tanks, infantry, etc., with the occasional mech or series of mechs. Typically Battlemechs are what people are looking to see, however, so there's always more pizzazz about them and Mechwarrior focuses on them as otherwise we'd have Battlefield with mechs. Or Titan Fall. And I gotta say... that actually sounds pretty good.

Ahem! For example two Blackjacks supported by ground vehicles, helicopters and infantry against insurgents.

A Hunchback and two Commandos on a security detail with soldiers actually riding on the hunch.

8 ton police mechs calling on the support of a Locust for a high speed chase.

Edited by Koniving, 01 September 2014 - 08:17 PM.


#43 Lynx7725

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,710 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:17 PM

View PostYeonne Greene, on 01 September 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

Advantages of humanoid motion are niche. A tank is better as fast armor, a submarine is better as a swimmer, a space-craft is better in space, and an aircraft is usually better if you need to reach a remote location. The 'Mechs in BattleTech are far, far too large to really take advantage of human style movement in any meaningful way.They are slow, top heavy, often don't have hands, and make easy targets. That 'Mechs still need infantry support means they actually are tanks on legs in function if not intent, rather than super-heavy infantry.

You're absolutely correct. For speed, Savannah Masters would outrun everything out there. For firepower, an equivalent weight tank would boost more firepower than a Mech, for less cost -- anyone wants to meet a lance of Alacorns? Or Burkes. PPCs and Gauss galore. In specific environments Infantry outperform Mechs, and really.. the one tactical advantage Mechs have over a lot of vehicles is that they can go HULK SMASH!

So why do the Houses still use them? Especially since they are more expensive than tanks (Fusion engine vs. ICE?), takes more to upkeep, and their factories just end up being nice juicy targets...

The reason, as was brutally inserted into my face is this: So you have a cheap-ass tank regiment that outnumber and outgun my Mech regiment. Fine. How are you going to get them to fight me on that planet 60 light years away?

If you have three times the number of vehicles than my mechs, you'd need probably 3 times the transport capabilities, either in sheer number or larger Jumpships and Dropships. That meant more vulnerability, greater complexity in operations, more logistics involved (imagine the amount of water the Dropships have to consume as reaction mass). Given the technological degradation the Inner Sphere suffered through, they couldn't afford to mass that much transport capabilities in one operation without having a real economic impact elsewhere.

So why are Mechs used in the Inner Sphere?

Because they suck at everything, but do decently well enough at everything that they are versatile across multiple environments. That make them ideal to load up in a small number of Dropships, lock into a single Jumpship, and moved into ops over terrain that you may not be 100% familiar with. They are in use for their versatility, not their sheer destructiveness.

EDIT: Oh right, forgot. Yes, you can cheaply mass armour to outgun Battlemech, but offloading and operational movement of that horde of armour will result in traffic jams and inefficiencies. In addition, you can kick Battlemechs out of the bays while in low orbit. Doing that to a tank is a bit... messy.

Edited by Lynx7725, 01 September 2014 - 08:41 PM.


#44 Zordicron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,547 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:41 PM

View PostLynx7725, on 01 September 2014 - 08:17 PM, said:

[/size]
You're absolutely correct. For speed, Savannah Masters would outrun everything out there. For firepower, an equivalent weight tank would boost more firepower than a Mech, for less cost -- anyone wants to meet a lance of Alacorns? Or Burkes. PPCs and Gauss galore. In specific environments Infantry outperform Mechs, and really.. the one tactical advantage Mechs have over a lot of vehicles is that they can go HULK SMASH!

So why do the Houses still use them? Especially since they are more expensive than tanks (Fusion engine vs. ICE?), takes more to upkeep, and their factories just end up being nice juicy targets...

The reason, as was brutally inserted into my face is this: So you have a cheap-ass tank regiment that outnumber and outgun my Mech regiment. Fine. How are you going to get them to fight me on that planet 60 light years away?

If you have three times the number of vehicles than my mechs, you'd need probably 3 times the transport capabilities, either in sheer number or larger Jumpships and Dropships. That meant more vulnerability, greater complexity in operations, more logistics involved (imagine the amount of water the Dropships have to consume as reaction mass). Given the technological degradation the Inner Sphere suffered through, they couldn't afford to mass that much transport capabilities in one operations without having a real economic impact elsewhere.

So why are Mechs used in the Inner Sphere?

Because they suck at everything, but do decently well enough at everything that they are versatile across multiple environments. That make them ideal to load up in a small number of Dropships, lock into a single Jumpship, and moved into ops over terrain that you may not be 100% familiar with. They are in use for their versatility, not their sheer destructiveness.

Its stuff like this that makes battletech what it is.

you cant play spreadsheet warrior with a universe thats been established and altered for 3 decades, OTHER PEOPLE ALREADY DID and then they alter it so it fits.

how much food do you need to bring to remote moon X for 3 lances of mechs? How much do you need to bring for 8 battalions of infantry? How many jumpships, etc. If you really get into it, it is pretty easy to fluff away most arguments with the universe. We are talking about missiles that cant go over 1000M, mechs with small ballistics that require ammunition that is hard to get to the field being heralded as superior anti aircraft mechs(as opposed to ER laser mechs that could track the enemy with the actual weapon and require no ammo) I mean you can go on and on, but it is what it is, cool factor, space fluff.

Yeah, and pretty much anything gets REKT from Atlas punch, so there is that.

#45 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:41 PM

Tanks can't jump. :P

#46 Scratx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 3,283 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 09:27 PM

View PostEl Bandito, on 01 September 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

Tanks can't jump. :P


The Hephaestus Jump Tank would like to have a word with you. :P

Posted Image


http://www.sarna.net...aestus#Variants

#47 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 01 September 2014 - 10:08 PM

It mounts only 2 ERML. It is more close to a hovercraft than that of a tank. :P

#48 AlexEss

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,491 posts
  • Locationthe ol north

Posted 02 September 2014 - 03:15 AM

While i am sure that the pilots train to handle their mech both on full and empty load (in the cases the mech has such needs,) but that is very different from having several tons of counterweight ripped away. Heck in the lore just losing armour could throw of the balance of the mech. So yes.. in theory a armless cent would be faster... But only if the pilot actually was trained to pilot a armless cent and it was built that way... Sudden battlefield related weight reduction will not make you faster as you have a broken and unbalanced mech.

A good comparison, a race car might be faster in a straight line if you take out all the balancing weights.. But it is not faster around the track for that.

Edited by AlexEss, 02 September 2014 - 03:17 AM.


#49 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 02 September 2014 - 03:22 AM

View PostWillard Phule, on 01 September 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

Actually, and I hate to throw TableTop rules into this, you're correct.

Speed is supposed to be based on weight and the size of the engine. In theory, you can put together an underweight mech and it should move faster.

That being said...remember who we're talking about here. They can't even get MASC to work because going over 150kph breaks the coding.

Not going to happen.

Never did happen, why should it start now?

View PostScratx, on 01 September 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:


The Hephaestus Jump Tank would like to have a word with you. :P

Posted Image


http://www.sarna.net...aestus#Variants

The Kanga would like to talk to you first!
Posted Image

#50 Wolfways

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 6,499 posts
  • LocationIn a shutdown overheated mech near you.

Posted 02 September 2014 - 04:06 AM

As a mechs computers and gyro are designed to keep a mech upright with all limbs attached wouldn't a mech with an arm blown off have more difficulty staying upright and so actually be slower?
If you customize a mech the gyro computers need adjusted to balance the weight, which is why the advanced clan computers made quickly replacing omni-pods viable, they could be quickly reconfigured.
I doubt you could do it in minutes during battle.

#51 mogs01gt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 4,292 posts
  • LocationOhio

Posted 02 September 2014 - 05:47 AM

Man! Those Cents sure are good lookin mechs!!! :P

#52 Eximar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 911 posts
  • LocationStill living in 3025

Posted 02 September 2014 - 08:11 AM

Posted Image

#53 Xyroc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 855 posts
  • LocationFighting the Clan Invasion

Posted 02 September 2014 - 10:09 AM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 01 September 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

if they were using a traditional drivetrain/wheeled or thrust sort of propulsion, that would be true.

But people who lose arms don't run faster. They actually run slower, as the arms no longer are there to act as counterbalances.
Mechs use artificial myomer musculature, and a actuator laden "skeleton" to largely mimic humanoid movement, and thus they don't suddenly increase their speed due to "weight loss".


hypothetical mech has hypothetical results ... short answer it works the way it does "just because" not because of some real world physics

Edited by Beliall, 02 September 2014 - 10:11 AM.


#54 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 02 September 2014 - 10:14 AM

View PostBeliall, on 02 September 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:


hypothetical mech has hypothetical results ... short answer it works the way it does "just because" not because of some real world physics

A wonderful Hypothesis!

#55 Almond Brown

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 5,851 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 10:30 AM

View PostYeonne Greene, on 01 September 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:


But they do get faster with less mass. Why else would a 20 ton Locust run faster than a 100 ton Atlas with the same engine?


Min. engine size for an Atlas is a 200. The max. for a Locust is a 190. Try again please.

#56 wanderer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 11,152 posts
  • LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.

Posted 02 September 2014 - 11:51 AM

This was stated repeatedly in closed beta.

It's as silly then as it was now. No.

Also, missing parts tend to make bipedal motion more awkward, as the 'Mech really isn't calibrated to move with it's gyro minus the usual counterweights. Now, if you built one WITHOUT those limbs and weight, you might get there....but at that point, you're also effectively building a lighter-weight 'Mech from scratch.

#57 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,810 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 12:10 PM

View PostAlmond Brown, on 02 September 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:


Min. engine size for an Atlas is a 200. The max. for a Locust is a 190. Try again please.


Jenner and Atlas.

Happy?

You may now kindly remove yourself from the room.

E: And no, a 190 is not the max engine size for a Locust, not canonically anyway.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 02 September 2014 - 12:11 PM.


#58 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 02 September 2014 - 01:45 PM

Taking 20+ points of damage in a single turn in TT forced a piloting roll - because you just lost over a ton of armour and your 'mech is trying to compensate for that.

So why doesn't 'mechs go faster when they lose parts? Because a 'mech is a highly trained* network of computers, interfaced with the MechWarrior through a NeuroHelmet, and it's not designed to. Leg assemblies with their myomer muscles are rated for a certain speed, gyros and most importantly the Diagnostic Interpretation computer(s) - the ones that actually direct the movevent of the 'mech to where the MechWarrior tells it to go - does not allow it; the 'mech has already suffered damage and pushing it beyond its performance envelope is probably not a good idea.

For those of you that don't have a copy of the Tech Manual handy, there's a pretty verbatim copy of pages 30-42 on sarna. It's a good read for those interested in the technology behind the machines were supposedly fighting in.

A 'mech is really not just a strap-on suit of armour and weapons; it's a highly sophisticated, semi-autonomous, robotic fighting machine.

*yes, trained. Training a great MechWarrior is a decades-long endeavour, and the 'Mech needs to learn how its MechWarrior behaves just as much as the MechWarrior needs to learn how his 'Mech behaves.

Edited by stjobe, 02 September 2014 - 01:50 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users