38 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

I've been playing this game for a while now. I still don't understand what is the best mech geometry.

If you were to build the ideal mech, what would it look like? I imagine there might be different answers for different weight classes and different roles (e.g. brawlers vs snipers), but maybe not. Maybe it's the same answer for every weight class and role.

• Are chicken legs better than humanoid legs? (e.g. Cataphract vs Black Knight)
  
• Is a flat torso better than tube-shaped torso? (e.g. Firestarter vs Jenner)
  
• Are humanoid arms better than weapon-arms? (e.g. Marauder vs Jagermech)

Or are there just too many variables to speak in generalities? Maybe the size of the arms influences what kind of torso shape is ideal, or maybe the hardpoint location in the torso determines what kind of arms are ideal, etc? Is it different for Clan mechs compared to IS mechs, due to Clan XLs? Obviously big arms are a problem if they contain all your weapons (e.g. Mist Lynx, Nova, etc)

I'm just looking at mechs like the Viper, the Cyclops and the Night Gyr and I'm still not sure I fully understand whether they have ideal mech geometry. I understand that high cockpits and high weapon mounts are good. I think you want as many hardpoints in the torso as possible. Even brawlers do well without weapons in the arms.

What's the ideal mech shape, assuming hardpoints are where you want them to be?

[Felicitatem Parco]

I would build a 90-100 ton stalker with ballistic mounts... Done.

Edit:. Plentiful ballistic mounts.

Edit2: someone said ECM-capable, so Yes, Please.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 01 June 2016 - 04:38 PM.

[oldradagast]

In no particular order, the list is:
- High, direct fire weapon mounts (head doesn't really count since you can barely put anything in it.) High mounted missile weapons are better than low-mounted ones, but don't really matter. High mounts are key for direct fire weapons, like energy and ballistics
- Enough tonnage and weapon hardpoints to boat multiple copies of a dangerous weapon. Ideally, weapon mounts will not only be high-mounted, but closely grouped to maximize convergence and minimize the amount of the mech that needs to be exposed. Note that "dangerous weapon" generally does NOT count missiles, except SRM's on faster chassis. LRM's are basically useless and don't make a mech good.
- Hitboxes that spread damage well. This usually means small torsos, particularly when looking at the mech face-on, with large arms. Long, skinny torsos are better than wide, flat ones.
- Shield arms are nice. Although these usually show up on more humanoid vs. chicken-walker mechs, and thus typically come with wider, flat torsos, they are still handy to have, particularly when brawling.
- Good mobility: Having a lousy torso twist range or similar problems can vastly weaken a mech.
- Other stuff: ECM and jump-jets are nice and can be the defining feature of a chassis variant
- Good quirks. Bottom of the list not because they don't matter but because they change all the time.

Edited by oldradagast, 01 June 2016 - 03:20 PM.

[GreenHell]

THESE ARE MY OPINIONS! TAKE THEM AS THEY ARE!!!

For dedicated brawling, I think a skinnier humanoid shape would be best. Especially if it has a dedicated shield arm (centurion). If the Centy still does so well even today, then I think we need to take notice! I also firmly believe that arm weapons are important for brawling. Yeah, you can torso mount a gun and do well with it Hunchback style, but if your opponent has an arm mounted gun of the same type he's going to be able to aim and shoot faster than you. (+1 for arm guns IMO)

For snipping, it has to be Raven/Crab/Marauder/Stalker 'blimp body' shapes. At long ranges, they appear even smaller than they are making them harder to hit than ever. With Stalker/Raven style top mounts, you have a great purpose built sniper. Crab and Marauder more fall into the 'Firing Line' category with their low arm mounts

For scouts, I think Spiders and Locusts both are exemplary. The Spider cockpit is right at the top, so it can hide almost all the mech and scout in safety. The Locust has to show a bit more mech, but is so small and fast that it makes up for it, including the lack of JJ's.

For 'Firing line' type mechs (the most common type), I think the Black-Jack, RifleMan/Jaeger, Hellbringer, and lower mounted 'blimp body' mechs like the Crab, Marauder, and Ebon-Jag fit the role best. These guys want to be at medium range (400m-600m), and their shapes (in different ways) help them to do that. The BJ, RFL, JM6, and HBR can form lines while using available cover to hide parts of their mechs. The CRB, MAD, and EBJ don't hide as much mech, but are harder to hit thanks to their shape (which also lets them spread damage around more).

Finally, LRM focused 'support' mechs don't really need any specific shape, although I do still prefer a 'blimp body' type for them. I believe that LRM's in MWO are best at 500m which puts them with the 'Firing Line' mechs as far as range, making the Large Laser their best backup weapon (IMO, of course). Since the LL also excels at 500m, they basically join the 'Firing Line' but perform a little differently.

Once again, these are just my opinions. If you disagree, that's fine. I never said I was right, just what I thought.

Edited by GreenHell, 01 June 2016 - 03:22 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Beyond aesthetics the only thing I think about in terms of geometry when evaluating a mech is where the hard points are and how many. Specifically, direct fire weapons high up, and as many as possible.

All the rest doesn't seem to matter much, at least generally speaking. Hit boxes, followed by quirks are what follow in terms of importance after hardpoint location, number and distribution...but just barely. None are really relevant to real "geometry" though since PGI can give a mech whatever hit boxes and quirks it wants regardless of the design. I prefer symmetric builds, but based on what I have seen in play and here in the forums, I think many if not most higher tier players would tend to prefer a slight (if not more so) preponderance of the dominant weapon hard point on one side (to better sword and board).

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 01 June 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

• Are chicken legs better than humanoid legs? (e.g. Cataphract vs Black Knight)
  
• Is a flat torso better than tube-shaped torso? (e.g. Firestarter vs Jenner)
  
• Are humanoid arms better than weapon-arms? (e.g. Marauder vs Jagermech

What's the ideal mech shape, assuming hardpoints are where you want them to be?

Legs aren't so important beyond lights and some mediums, if the chicken legs are bent a bit that will be advantageous but not really as a hitbox advantage. Main thing is that they aren't too thick or too tall.

Humanoid shape is generally better.

Flat torso is better.

V shaped torso is better, you want negative space between arms and torso and a slimmer waist is better than a square/blocky one (BK vs. Atlas). Overall shouldn't be too wide, slimmer is much better.

You want the arms to be on the bigger/beefy side, especially the upper arms/shoulders - they'll absorb more damage when twisting - and they are definitely better than Jagermech gun arms as a hitbox (but worse for firing over terrain).

You also want the head to be relatively tight to the body, not elongated/tall or on a long neck (this increases CT).


You mostly want a roughly similar division of total torso space between all 3 sections and preferably the hitboxesis not immediately obvious (similar to the BKs).


Top it off with Battlemaster style torso mounts and you have my ideal mech.

Edited by Ultimax, 01 June 2016 - 03:58 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

1) a Slightly Protruding Torso, to allow for better Rolling of Damage,
2) Chicken Legs as they have a Farther Range of Motion, Harder to Hit,
3) High Cockpit, to Better Look over Hills, and reduce Exposure,
4) High Weapons, that are Close to the Cockpit, to allow for Better Hill Sniping,
5) a good Range of Variants as to help the Mechs Viability with several Roles,
6) NOT an OmniMech! Battlemechs have better Customization and Viability,

[Felicitatem Parco]

oldradagast, on 01 June 2016 - 03:18 PM, said:

In no particular order, the list is:
- High, direct fire weapon mounts (head doesn't really count since you can barely put anything in it.) High mounted missile weapons are better than low-mounted ones, but don't really matter. High mounts are key for direct fire weapons, like energy and ballistics
- Enough tonnage and weapon hardpoints to boat multiple copies of a dangerous weapon. Ideally, weapon mounts will not only be high-mounted, but closely grouped to maximize convergence and minimize the amount of the mech that needs to be exposed. Note that "dangerous weapon" generally does NOT count missiles, except SRM's on faster chassis. LRM's are basically useless and don't make a mech good.
- Hitboxes that spread damage well. This usually means small torsos, particularly when looking at the mech face-on, with large arms. Long, skinny torsos are better than wide, flat ones.
- Shield arms are nice. Although these usually show up on more humanoid vs. chicken-walker mechs, and thus typically come with wider, flat torsos, they are still handy to have, particularly when brawling.
- Good mobility: Having a lousy torso twist range or similar problems can vastly weaken a mech.
- Other stuff: ECM and jump-jets are nice and can be the defining feature of a chassis variant
- Good quirks. Bottom of the list not because they don't matter but because they change all the time.

So... ballistic stalker?

[Hit the Deck]

I always show this robot when this topic arises:



Drawn by your Alex.

[Y E O N N E]

Ideal geometry is a thin rod with narrow torso hit-boxes from the front and side-torsos obscured by shielding arms that only pivot on the Y-axis. Cockpit is at the top of the 'Mech, and weapons are at cockpit-height.

[oldradagast]

Prosperity Park, on 01 June 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

So... ballistic stalker?

Yes, although the Stalker technically has a few weaknesses - it has no shield arms and it has poor twist range and is thus vulnerable to light mechs that can position well and rip off the vulnerable side torsos. Still, a ballistic Stalker, with high mounted ballistics, would be one of the ideal mech geometry configurations barring something completely custom built.

Maulers with smaller torsos while retaining the reasonably high-mounted torso ballistic points would be another. Banshees are also pretty good, though not all of their weapon mounts are high (only secondary ones after heavy boating), but they do roll damage well and have reasonable mobility for of their size. If more of their weapons mounted high up, they'd be horrifying.

Edited by oldradagast, 01 June 2016 - 05:05 PM.

[RangerGee412]

A stalker, lots of ballistics in the torsos. And giant shield arms that cover the torso's. It would be..... beautiful!

[MeiSooHaityu]

To me, the Ebon Jaguar is pretty close.

Smallish front profile of a Aircraft shaped torso. High mount weapons on the shoulders, lowest mounts about even with the cockpit or higher, arms that can shield the side.

If ideally the mech would also sit about 5 to 10 tons from the upper limit of it's class (unlike the EBJ) to have as much tonnage on tap as possible. JJs and other goodies as well too.

That's what feels ideal to me (and probably why I like the EBJ).

[LordKnightFandragon]

Id take a chicken walker for legs, seems more stable...

For the torso, a shorter torso, maybe more like the Crab, arms that are mounted alongside the cockpit, or above, like the Malice battlemech from the Clix game. If it was real life, a torso design that had edges, angles and slopes to it would be good for deflections and stuff.

[William Mountbank]

Well, for lights at least chicken legs take more damage than humanoid legs, even though they look cooler (to me).

[PhoenixFire55]

A floating shpere. Because among all bodies of the same volume shpere has the least surface.
If you have to have legs then sphere on legs.
If you can't attach legs to a sphere then cylinder on legs.
Cylinder on legs = UrbanMech.

Jokes aside, this discussion is silly. There is always an ideal geometry for each situation, but there is none for every situation. That said, there are geometries that are always bad.

[totgeboren]

Chicken legs like the Crow, torso like the Crab/Stalker, right arm small and high like the Stalker/Jaeger, left arm big shield like the Cent.
Done. Imba mech. So... a Stalker with a cent arm, and ballistic hardpoints in the right arm.

[Myke Pantera]

After the "true" volume scaling of mechs, I expect the humanoid mechs to be at a disadvantage. Why? Because the volume of a cube may be equal to the volume of a brick, but the brick has a much greater surface area, especially when it needs to show you it's big front surface when wanting to shoot at you...

The inherent problem of the true volume approach is, that we need to expose mostly the front side, so those mechs that have a small front to side torso area ratio will have an advantage...

To answer the original question: Depends!
* Humanoid with regular arms is good for brawling because you can torso twist and shield with your arms.
* Chickenwalker with high mounted weapon arms are good for long range fights, because their front profile is smaller, and high weapon mounts allow to expose even less of yourself (Up to 4 extra critslots is also nice to have)

[Thorn Hallis]

2D model

[Anjian]

When we used to play Chromehounds, the level of customization meant you literally build mechs from scratch using an assortment of parts. Long ago, from the crucible test of battle we have determined the optimal fighting form.

The design also takes one step further --- we put the weapons right in front of the torso, making torso hits impossible without destroying through the weapons first.