362 replies to this topic

[Arctic Fox]

Aethon, on 05 June 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

That seems like one hell of a waste to me. How much would said machine cost, anyway? I don't have any of the books that describe the build rules necessary for such a machine.

The Cockpit, Musculature, Internal Structure and Actuators are significantly more expensive than in standard 'Mechs, not to mention the massively mounting costs of everything else. My calculations could well be wrong, but it looks like the Omega costs somewhere in the vicinity of 58 million C-bills, and it doesn't even have that much fancy technology.

Edited by Arctic Fox, 05 June 2012 - 10:02 PM.

[DrMarijuana]

Mech on wheels would be cool

[SnakeTheFox]

THE Leo, on 05 June 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

When you think about it, why the hell has no one ever tried creating a Mech over a 100 tons?

Because BattleTech is a board game with a proverbial ton of literal tonnage-related rules that have the potential to be vastly complicated and broken by tonnages of greater than 100 tons. Not to say they don't exist, but when they do there are usually rules written exclusively for them (like the Ares mentioned earlier).

[Skadi]

DrMarijuana, on 05 June 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

Mech on wheels would be cool

Cant help but think of armored core...

[Aethon]

Skadi, on 05 June 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

Cant help but think of armored core...

You mean Heavy Gear?

Arctic Fox, on 05 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

The Cockpit, Musculature, Internal Structure and Actuators are significantly more expensive than in standard 'Mechs, not to mention the massively mounting costs of everything else. My calculations could well be wrong, but it looks like the Omega costs somewhere in the vicinity of 58 million C-bills, and it doesn't even have that much fancy technology.

Technology is not everything; in close quarters, I would be more worried if I ran into a King Crab from the 2700's than a Dire Wolf Prime from the early 31st century. No matter how fancy you get about killing people, the old AC/20 will keep on truckin'.

Also, you could deploy two lances of IS heavy mechs for that cost, with C-bills to spare...or a full company of mediums. Hell, you could field a full star of non-XL Clan second-line assault mechs for that price, and still see great durability per-machine.

Edited by Aethon, 05 June 2012 - 10:25 PM.

[Skadi]

well no, but now that you mention it your right as well about heavy gear.

[Adrienne Vorton]

Carl Wrede, on 05 June 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

No, nay, never.... no, nay. never no more!!!!

Everything went to pieces that late in the storyline and anything from it is crap!

this quote pretty much covers what happened to my beloved BT franchise.at a certain point, development of the game took REALLY odd ways, so me and alot of ppl that i know went back to 3025 - 3055 and forever stayed there. reminds me a bit of heavy metal xD .. so "I say no nay never, no nay never no more..."

[CaveMan]

Adrienne Vorton, on 05 June 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

this quote pretty much covers what happened to my beloved BT franchise.at a certain point, development of the game took REALLY odd ways, so me and alot of ppl that i know went back to 3025 - 3055 and forever stayed there. reminds me a bit of heavy metal xD .. so "I say no nay never, no nay never no more..."

Yep. What's it going to take for the guys in charge to recognize that a lot of stuff post-3057 and everything post-3067 was a huge mistake and the fans generally hate it? I swear, if I ever have the money to buy the rights, I am taking over and rebooting the universe from the ground up.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Talk about something that would disenchant a crowd of mechwarriors and send us running back to the table top game....

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Nothing over 100 tons please.

[TheRingLeader]

im not a very big fan on the whole 100+ ton thing, i think something around 50 tons isent bad, but the less turns, sure i would get less weapons and stuff, but im using the same weapons as that 100+ ton 'mech, so really, depending on how fast i could move, i could have him down when i take down his shields.

[Karl Streiger]

Some of the lower end super heavies may perform well. But only designs with a top speed of 50kph or less and a standard structure -> for example the ThunderHawk or the AS7-D Atlas
...everything that is so big and move only 32kph is dead

[Aethon]

CaveMan, on 06 June 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Yep. What's it going to take for the guys in charge to recognize that a lot of stuff post-3057 and everything post-3067 was a huge mistake and the fans generally hate it? I swear, if I ever have the money to buy the rights, I am taking over and rebooting the universe from the ground up.

It's not all bad after 3067. Some cool factions that had been crapped on all through the timeline finally got some good writing after 3065. I also dislike a few of the technologies that were introduced after that time, but it didn't ruin Battletech for me.

Dark Age is where things really went pants-on-head stupid, IMHO. It no longer resembled Battletech at that point, and Wizkids didn't give a crap about canon. It was nothing more than Wizkids' half-hearted, careless attempt to immediately cash in on their new IP. They may have made money running our beloved franchise into the ground, but they certainly didn't do Battletech or its fans any favours.

[Adept2]

Urgh... what is it with the fascination some people have for "even bigger cheese". No thanks.

[KILLA4K]

Praetorians, on 05 June 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

To put it simply this game is based off a game from the 80s dont rock the boat some of the stuff on sarnanet is user created in an attempt to keep the game going as fasa was having issues. so leave it to the basics what is the point off a mech over 100 tons it the ground itself would not be able to support it efficently and the mech would fall all the time as rock crumbled under 13 tons per square foot of presure

There are world war two tanks that weigh more that 100 tons.
also the Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster was a 1500 ton super-heavy tank that was proposed in [color=#000000]23 June 1942.[/color]

[Slepnir]

There is only 1 truely awsome 100+ ton mech-

The MACII monster from macross.
4 artillery cannons(torsos) and 6 thunderbolt 20 launchers(3 per arm)
.

[Guru Zeb]

MagnusEffect, on 05 June 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

I am perfectly happy continuing to believe it didn't happen. Again.. **** the Jihad. I don't give a damn if it was an official publishing. All that **** was retarded and poorly written. Anyone saying differently is either a dumbass or secretly hates Battletech. Judgemental? On things like this, you can bet your *** I am.

Here speaks the voice of the true myopic BT Evangelist !!!!!!
(Not aimed at you in particular m8 just those who seem to share your attitude)

When it suites your current argument CANON is all that matters and no matter how functional
rational or backed up by real world examples someone else's opinion/concept is ........
Your oh so precious canon trumps all ....... in your pocket universe at least.
Usually accompanied by nerdrage typed demands for the nerf stick to make anything they don't like or
found they couldn't handle in previous games completely impossible in MWO.

Then on the other hand when it suites a different argument, canon can go screw itself !!!!!
Usually followed by some kind of call to use everyday logic or common sense to see how
right they are on this topic ......... seriously

What is it with you people ............ can't you just decide are you TRUE BELIEVERS or not,
is canon the main God given guide to all mechwarrior goodness or what ?!?!?

The whole attitude is sadly close to the attitudes of real religious leaders across the ages.
Basically anything that allows them to be in complete control and shape everything to suite
their own tastes and advantage.

After your above post I hope I never see you use canon stick to win an argument.
Hmmmmm Magnus maybe am being a little unfair here since am not sure what your general attitude to canon is anyway.
But am just so sick of hearing myopic BT Evangelists spouting crap !!!!!!

Anyways if i have misrepresented your opinions i apologise in advance, but the overall thrist of my comment remains.

Edited by Guru Zeb, 06 June 2012 - 01:59 AM.

[Guru Zeb]

ValiantSpider, on 06 June 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

There are world war two tanks that weigh more that 100 tons.
also the Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster was a 1500 ton super-heavy tank that was proposed in [color=#000000]23 June 1942.[/color]

Sorry bro but BAD EXAMPLE to quote ................. Much as i'd like to support you against the silly comment your attacking
you can't be allowed to attack a bad argument with another bad argument ........ that's a cultural and intellectual version of rubbish in rubbish out.
fact: the Germans had considerable problems with some of the larger tanks they
actually did field bogging down in soft earth, sinking in soggy ground, etc.
And proposed usually indicates whatever your talking about never got built ............................

So unfortunately your argument holds no more merit than the one your attacking ........ sorry bro

[Pvt Dancer]

Is this a joke thread just to get post counts up?

[Sychodemus]

Arctic Fox, on 05 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

The Cockpit, Musculature, Internal Structure and Actuators are significantly more expensive than in standard 'Mechs, not to mention the massively mounting costs of everything else. My calculations could well be wrong, but it looks like the Omega costs somewhere in the vicinity of 58 million C-bills, and it doesn't even have that much fancy technology.

Your c-bill projection is correct. The Omega is actually not a very good example of how to build a super-heavy 'Mech (but you could swap the GRs for Arrow IVs and keep it standing in the door of a dropship.)