61 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

Liking your own posts may not help you, Meat.

Though I do agree to wanting to see some of these mechs in game.

King Crab is one of the very few mechs that is -- in terms of Lore -- supposed to be able to use the Devastator AC/20 (the only single shot AC/20 to exist, as all others are multi-shot akin to the two demonstrated here using MWO's resources) without having to brace and stand perfectly stationary. (Even the Atlas had to, and the book this was in the Atlas pilot still lost his balance, giving the Devastator a 'No Go' from Steiner forces since it carried bad risks with its intense recoil).

Mechs which Meatwagon here described as "Crab-like" (as in like the Crab mech) are known for being very short compared to other mechs of their weight class. In exchange they have very long phallic or saucer-like bodies. (Think Stalker, but no taller than the Hunchback in regards to the 'Crab'.) These are especially vulnerable from the side and the top but very hard to hit from the front (phallic rigs like Crab mech, old art King Crab) or mostly vulnerable from the top while low-profile from the side (new art of King Crab). Either way, crab-like mechs are supposed to be hard to hit from either the front or the side due to their shape, being smaller than other mechs of equal tonnage, but in exchange they are severely at risk of LRM-induced death due to their very huge top-down profiles.

For example, despite being 100 tons the King Crab would be no taller than just below the Jagermech's arms. However, two Catapults could probably stand on top of it front to back (old art) or side by side (new art). It just depends on whose art you go by. (Old art, the King Crab is as long front-to-back as the Victor is tall, which is longer than a Stalker is from back to nose).

It is because of this low-to-the-ground body-shape, however, that the King Crab can -- in lore and tabletop-- use the Devastator 203mm variant AC/20 when the same gun is supposed to be impossible for a Jagermech to use (despite all the AC/20 Jagers).

The Cauldron Born uses one of the very few UAC/20 variants that fire 20 damage/shell rounds. Something that if mounted on a humanoid mech (tall and skinny in comparison) would be impossible to manage while moving.

--------------

Now as some might ask, what about all the AC/20 totting mechs like the Hunchback? Tabletop focuses its damage in one spot!

The 4G Hunchback carries the Tomodzuru Autocannon Mount Type 20. That is depicted in multiple concept art as having 4 rotating barrels within the Hunch, firing a series of 4 cannon rounds each doing 5 damage in a rapid burst dealing 20 damage.
In this video it is depicted as firing 5 shots (without much recoil though it's noticeable). That would be a Defiance Mech Hunter AC/20 variant. (5 shots, 4 damage each).

Some others with specified shot counts:
ChemJet Gun - Slow 3 shot burst, 185mm, vicious recoil.
Armstrong Requiem - rapid 6 shot burst
Crusher Super Heavy Cannon - 10 shot burst.

There's 15 total (9 unique, 6 variants of variants) AC/20 variants.
One of them shoots 100 bullets to deal 20 damage.

(Note: There's multiple manufacturers of Chemjet Gun and Crusher, these are supposed to have minor variations to include 'MG' style versions. An example of the Crusher in an MG version, the firing rate is slower, generating 10 shots across 4 seconds instead of in a rapid burst, much like a series of 5 AC/2s but for only 14 tons. Lore-wise its recoil is manageable and would have half the regular AC/2 range, with no cooldown time. Downfall is that this exists only in the lore but in tabletop all AC/20s are summarized to hit a specific component for mathematical simplicity.)

For comparison, there's supposed to be 44 unique variants of the plain old medium laser. It's over 60 with variants of variants.
-----------------

But back on topic, in the not too distant future I think these would be a lot of fun to include. Four legged mechs are supposed to have a much easier time climbing and be able to maintain their balance against knockdowns that would take down somewhat larger two-legged mechs.

Edited by Koniving, 27 July 2013 - 09:22 PM.

[Animus Corpus]

CRAB-LIKE and Four-Legged - two parts

Unbound Inferno, on 27 July 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

I'll just leave this here [KING CRAB];




Doesn't look 4-legged to me.



Also, the Marauder is iconic. Do not mess with iconic mechs. Not some 4-legged thing.





Is already 4-legs [GOLIATH]


55 tons – Scorpion


At the very least. do some research. 4--legged mechs exist, but I will not stand for you changing ones that are not.

CRAB-LIKE and Four-Legged - i was trying to include two similar but divergent areas of possible upgrades for the mechs. The Crab-Like should have improved movement and armor due to hard shells and Vulture-like inverted legs. I know there are only two common four-legged mechs, but the four-legged concept could be applied to multiple other mechs to make them better. And what about a Centaur hybrid mech. Piecing together a normal torso, arms, and head onto a quad body should not be that hard to do?

Relax people, the cannon is already out the window with the baby and the bathwater. Time to make the world we want to play in. Which is what i am trying to get done.

"If thein eye offend the, pluck it out........." Be cool bro

Edited by Meat Waggon, 28 July 2013 - 04:42 AM.

[Animus Corpus]

Unbound Inferno, on 27 July 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

I'll just leave this here [KING CRAB];




Doesn't look 4-legged to me [its CRAB-LIKE].



Also, the Marauder is iconic. Do not mess with iconic mechs. Not some 4-legged thing.





Is already 4-legs [exactly - which is why i want it]



55 tons – Scorpion

At the very least. do some research. 4--legged mechs exist, but I will not stand for you changing ones that are not.

CRAB-LIKE - i gues i was not clear. Most of those on the list are CRAB-LIKE mechs that are, right now, two legged designs. There is nothing to say they cant be made better by being made into Four-Legged designs. Make them into Centaur-like mechs and let them keep their torsos, arms, and head (or turrets).

It if is concern over the timeline and the MW cannon, that has already been thrown out with the baby and the bathwater. Why not make them the way you want them to be?

[Strum Wealh]

Jackson Jax Teller, on 27 July 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

I thought it was the lawsuit from HG cause its something from macross?

• Super Dimension Fortress Macross (produced by Studio Nue, and distinct from Harmony Gold's Robotech) originally aired on Oct. 03, 1982.
  
• Battledroids (the precursor to BattleTech) was originally released in sometime around August of 1984 (from the court documents, linked below), with FASA using imagery licensed from a group called Twentieth Century Imports (TCI), who in turn (allegedly? - see the from the court documents, linked below) licensed the material from Tatsunoko Productions (more on Tatsunoko below).
  
• Robotech (as distinct from Macross) originally aired on March 04, 1985, using footage from Macross licensed to Harmony Gold USA by Tatsunoko Productions on or about January 15, 1984 (from the court documents, linked below).
  
• "Battledroids" became "BattleTech" sometime in the Fall of 1985 "pursuant to a settlement between FASA and LucasFilm" over use of the term "droid" (from the court documents, linked below).

And all was well... until ~1994.

• FASA CORPORATION and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., Defendant (December 05-07, 1994)
  
• FASA CORPORATION and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., Defendant (June 19-23, 1995)
  
• FASA CORPORATION and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., Defendant (January 22, 1996)

In or around December of 1991, a FASA rep apparently met with a rep from Playmates Toys to discuss production and sales of a BT-related toyline. Playmates apparently declined a license for BT-related toys, but went ahead and produced similar designs for their ExoSquad toyline.

One example - the prime example, arguably - is the "ExoSquad Heavy Attack E-Frame", pictured below and clearly modeled on the Mad Cat:

In response, FASA (along with Virtual World Entertainment) sued Playmates. The details of the proceedings can be read at the above-bulleted links.

And then came the issue with Harmony Gold (who, at the time, had a business relationship with Playmates):

• HARMONY GOLD U.S.A., INC., a corporation, and PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. FASA CORPORATION, a corporation, and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, a corporation, Defendants (June 12-13, 1996)
  
• HARMONY GOLD U.S.A., INC, a corporation; and PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. FASA CORPORATION, a corporation; and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, a corporation, Defendants (November 06-07, 1996)

And, well, we know what happened from there...

After the hoopla with Harmony Gold, FASA apparently decided it was safer/better to purge all artwork that wasn't produced by in-house artists - thus, the loss of the Dougram designs (BattleMaster, Shadow Hawk, etc), Crusher Joe designs (Ostall, etc), and VMI designs (the IICs, Stone Rhino/"Behemoth", Bane/"Kraken", etc) in addition to the loss of the Macross designs - and FASA's successors (Topps, Catalyst, etc) had apparently decided to adopt a similar stance.

And it all started over the Mad Cat.

----------

More recently, the Japanese courts determined that Tatsunoko Productions (brought on board to produce the bulk of the actual animation for the original Macross series, and from whom Harmony Gold licensed the materials for Robotech) owns the original footage and international licensing rights for the anime and merchandise of Macross but not the rest of the franchise (in which they had no hand in making), while Studio Nue (who provided the story, characters designs, etc.) and Big West Co. Ltd. (who provided the financial backing for the project) co-own the characters, story, etc., and resulting overall franchise.
Though, Harmony Gold apparently maintains that their license applies to Macross-based materials outside of the original Super Dimension Fortress Macross series, and has actively worked against other Macross-related projects being released in the US.
(source)

Still more recently, HG is apparently suing Hasbro over elements of the latter's G.I. Joe/Transformers crossover toyline.
(source 1, source 2, source 3)

[Animus Corpus]

Strum Wealh, on 28 July 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

• Super Dimension Fortress Macross (produced by Studio Nue, and distinct from Harmony Gold's Robotech) originally aired on Oct. 03, 1982.
  
• Battledroids (the precursor to BattleTech) was originally released in sometime around August of 1984 (from the court documents, linked below), with FASA using imagery licensed from a group called Twentieth Century Imports (TCI), who in turn (allegedly? - see the from the court documents, linked below) licensed the material from Tatsunoko Productions (more on Tatsunoko below).
  
• Robotech (as distinct from Macross) originally aired on March 04, 1985, using footage from Macross licensed to Harmony Gold USA by Tatsunoko Productions on or about January 15, 1984 (from the court documents, linked below).
  
• "Battledroids" became "BattleTech" sometime in the Fall of 1985 "pursuant to a settlement between FASA and LucasFilm" over use of the term "droid" (from the court documents, linked below).

And all was well... until ~1994.

• FASA CORPORATION and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., Defendant (December 05-07, 1994)
  
• FASA CORPORATION and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., Defendant (June 19-23, 1995)
  
• FASA CORPORATION and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., Defendant (January 22, 1996)

In or around December of 1991, a FASA rep apparently met with a rep from Playmates Toys to discuss production and sales of a BT-related toyline. Playmates apparently declined a license for BT-related toys, but went ahead and produced similar designs for their ExoSquad toyline.


One example - the prime example, arguably - is the "ExoSquad Heavy Attack E-Frame", pictured below and clearly modeled on the Mad Cat:

In response, FASA (along with Virtual World Entertainment) sued Playmates. The details of the proceedings can be read at the above-bulleted links.

And then came the issue with Harmony Gold (who, at the time, had a business relationship with Playmates):

• HARMONY GOLD U.S.A., INC., a corporation, and PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. FASA CORPORATION, a corporation, and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, a corporation, Defendants (June 12-13, 1996)
  
• HARMONY GOLD U.S.A., INC, a corporation; and PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. FASA CORPORATION, a corporation; and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, a corporation, Defendants (November 06-07, 1996)

And, well, we know what happened from there...


After the hoopla with Harmony Gold, FASA apparently decided it was safer/better to purge all artwork that wasn't produced by in-house artists - thus, the loss of the Dougram designs (BattleMaster, Shadow Hawk, etc), Crusher Joe designs (Ostall, etc), and VMI designs (the IICs, Stone Rhino/"Behemoth", Bane/"Kraken", etc) in addition to the loss of the Macross designs - and FASA's successors (Topps, Catalyst, etc) had apparently decided to adopt a similar stance.

And it all started over the Mad Cat.

----------

More recently, the Japanese courts determined that Tatsunoko Productions (brought on board to produce the bulk of the actual animation for the original Macross series, and from whom Harmony Gold licensed the materials for Robotech) owns the original footage and international licensing rights for the anime and merchandise of Macross but not the rest of the franchise (in which they had no hand in making), while Studio Nue (who provided the story, characters designs, etc.) and Big West Co. Ltd. (who provided the financial backing for the project) co-own the characters, story, etc., and resulting overall franchise.
Though, Harmony Gold apparently maintains that their license applies to Macross-based materials outside of the original Super Dimension Fortress Macross series, and has actively worked against other Macross-related projects being released in the US.
(source)

Still more recently, HG is apparently suing Hasbro over elements of the latter's G.I. Joe/Transformers crossover toyline.
(source 1, source 2, source 3)

I did not know ANY OF THAT - wow - that is all messed up. Letigious people........a big robot with missile launchers on its shoulders is not exactly a one-off idea. Thanks for all the helpful info

[James The Fox Dixon]

Strum Wealh, on 28 July 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

• Super Dimension Fortress Macross (produced by Studio Nue, and distinct from Harmony Gold's Robotech) originally aired on Oct. 03, 1982.
  
• Battledroids (the precursor to BattleTech) was originally released in sometime around August of 1984 (from the court documents, linked below), with FASA using imagery licensed from a group called Twentieth Century Imports (TCI), who in turn (allegedly? - see the from the court documents, linked below) licensed the material from Tatsunoko Productions (more on Tatsunoko below).
  
• Robotech (as distinct from Macross) originally aired on March 04, 1985, using footage from Macross licensed to Harmony Gold USA by Tatsunoko Productions on or about January 15, 1984 (from the court documents, linked below).
  
• "Battledroids" became "BattleTech" sometime in the Fall of 1985 "pursuant to a settlement between FASA and LucasFilm" over use of the term "droid" (from the court documents, linked below).

And all was well... until ~1994.

• FASA CORPORATION and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., Defendant (December 05-07, 1994)
  
• FASA CORPORATION and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., Defendant (June 19-23, 1995)
  
• FASA CORPORATION and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., Defendant (January 22, 1996)

In or around December of 1991, a FASA rep apparently met with a rep from Playmates Toys to discuss production and sales of a BT-related toyline. Playmates apparently declined a license for BT-related toys, but went ahead and produced similar designs for their ExoSquad toyline.


One example - the prime example, arguably - is the "ExoSquad Heavy Attack E-Frame", pictured below and clearly modeled on the Mad Cat:

In response, FASA (along with Virtual World Entertainment) sued Playmates. The details of the proceedings can be read at the above-bulleted links.

And then came the issue with Harmony Gold (who, at the time, had a business relationship with Playmates):

• HARMONY GOLD U.S.A., INC., a corporation, and PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. FASA CORPORATION, a corporation, and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, a corporation, Defendants (June 12-13, 1996)
  
• HARMONY GOLD U.S.A., INC, a corporation; and PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. FASA CORPORATION, a corporation; and VIRTUAL WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, a corporation, Defendants (November 06-07, 1996)

And, well, we know what happened from there...


After the hoopla with Harmony Gold, FASA apparently decided it was safer/better to purge all artwork that wasn't produced by in-house artists - thus, the loss of the Dougram designs (BattleMaster, Shadow Hawk, etc), Crusher Joe designs (Ostall, etc), and VMI designs (the IICs, Stone Rhino/"Behemoth", Bane/"Kraken", etc) in addition to the loss of the Macross designs - and FASA's successors (Topps, Catalyst, etc) had apparently decided to adopt a similar stance.

And it all started over the Mad Cat.

----------

More recently, the Japanese courts determined that Tatsunoko Productions (brought on board to produce the bulk of the actual animation for the original Macross series, and from whom Harmony Gold licensed the materials for Robotech) owns the original footage and international licensing rights for the anime and merchandise of Macross but not the rest of the franchise (in which they had no hand in making), while Studio Nue (who provided the story, characters designs, etc.) and Big West Co. Ltd. (who provided the financial backing for the project) co-own the characters, story, etc., and resulting overall franchise.
Though, Harmony Gold apparently maintains that their license applies to Macross-based materials outside of the original Super Dimension Fortress Macross series, and has actively worked against other Macross-related projects being released in the US.
(source)

Still more recently, HG is apparently suing Hasbro over elements of the latter's G.I. Joe/Transformers crossover toyline.
(source 1, source 2, source 3)

A couple of points that you forgot. Big West won an injunction against HG that stopped HG from blocking importation of Macross related items into the US in 2002. Harmony Gold has backed away from their position that they own all things Macross including other series.

[TungstenWall]

I would LOVE to see mechs like the Goliath added to the game.

One of the issues is the fact they have four legs. The mechs we have now are bipedal, so animating them on slopes is much easier. Mechs with four legs would require some kind of complex coding that would tilt the mech according to the slope they are on, or change the height the legs land at as to not make the Scorpion look like a Minecraft Spider. Would the hull always stay flat, and the legs adjust to terrain? Or would it be WoT style where hills can change your LoF?

Though they use the same weapons, I hear Quads have less crit space, than bipedal mechs. This would require a lot of balancing.

There is also the problem with lore. While there are a a few mechs (at least 3) that exist in 3050, Quads don't get enough variants until 3060s.

[Animus Corpus]

I know your right, but do to the fact that the timeline seems to be out the window to a point, i was hoping there would be enough community push to get them to at least release the KING CRAB and the BUSHWACKER. Thanks for all your input guys.....

[Animus Corpus]

I LOVE the new mech the Goldenbuy - but i want the KING CRAB (with both AC/20s and no penalty to fire them) and the BUSHWACKER - please add them in. Thanks

[Zarlaren]

Depends how they design it. I would love to take one for a go. I say it comes down to weight if they lose one leg it is ok if they lose 2 then it should depend which 2 are out if the lose 3 then it should be death cause of instability issue. Guess it just depends how they design em out. And would I pilot one of course I would I love to try new mechs.

http://www.sarna.net...28BattleMech%29
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Goliath

Seems there is only 2 quads available and one Triped available.


http://www.sarna.net...28BattleMech%29

[Sug]

I came here looking for a ridiculous post. And you did not disappoint.

[Garth Erlam]

[color=cyan]Just to make sure it's clear, it's largely a work/code/etc issue for why this isn't done. Multi-legged NPC's/Mechs/characters/etc are incredibly difficult to animate and code in, and this would be upwards of 3-4 times the work of a 'normal' Mech. It's not we don't want to, it's just more effort for roughly the same gain. Does that make sense?[/color]

[drloser]

Garth Erlam, on 13 August 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

[color=cyan] this would be upwards of 3-4 times the work of a 'normal' Mech [...] for roughly the same gain[/color]

But I guess you will sell 3-4 times more 4-legged mechs. If you want to sell your new mechs, you need to offer something "new".

[Johnny Z]

A great idea. These type of mechs could also be multi player or even the artillery mechs I seen a post about. Or both The idea of being able to see visually on the field, which mechs are artillery or multi player would be a good idea also, come to think about it.

[Chavette]

drloser, on 13 August 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

But I guess you will sell 3-4 times more 4-legged mechs. If you want to sell your new mechs, you need to offer something "new".

Exactly. Return won't be a problem for the first one, and for the later ones you can re-use the animation, and other existing pipelines for it.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Garth Erlam, on 13 August 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

[color=cyan]Just to make sure it's clear, it's largely a work/code/etc issue for why this isn't done. Multi-legged NPC's/Mechs/characters/etc are incredibly difficult to animate and code in, and this would be upwards of 3-4 times the work of a 'normal' Mech. It's not we don't want to, it's just more effort for roughly the same gain. Does that make sense?[/color]

I suppose that makes sense.............. I guess.,, *throws down arms and sulks away* hmph.


EDIT: BUT THINK HOW COOL IT WOULD BE!!!!!!!!

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 15 August 2013 - 07:29 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

MoonUnitBeta, on 15 August 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

I suppose that makes sense.............. I guess.,, *throws down arms and sulks away* hmph.


EDIT: BUT THINK HOW COOL IT WOULD BE!!!!!!!!

It'll be easier for them to put in Land-Air Mechs then Quads.... I want a LAM. /sulks

[MonkeyCheese]

Garth Erlam, on 13 August 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

[color=cyan]Just to make sure it's clear, it's largely a work/code/etc issue for why this isn't done. Multi-legged NPC's/Mechs/characters/etc are incredibly difficult to animate and code in, and this would be upwards of 3-4 times the work of a 'normal' Mech. It's not we don't want to, it's just more effort for roughly the same gain. Does that make sense?[/color]

Its easy to understand why, but I still wish I had a tarantula to drive around http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Tarantula




Hopefully one day in the far future we could atleast have landair mechs, tanks and elementals.

[TexAce]

Strum Wealh, on 24 July 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

I think the OP was going got there being two classes of 'Mech listed: what he(?) refers to as "crab-like" (characterized by a low, hunched-over body with the attachment points for the arms set low and wide (and usually forward of the torso attachment point), regardless of the number of legs) and the Quad 'Mechs. Basically, he(?) is railing/campaigning against humanoids (but then lists the rather-humanoid Annihilator in the same grouping ).

Strum Wealh, on 24 July 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

I think the OP was going got there being two classes of 'Mech listed: what he(?) refers to as "crab-like" (characterized by a low, hunched-over body with the attachment points for the arms set low and wide (and usually forward of the torso attachment point), regardless of the number of legs) and the Quad 'Mechs. Basically, he(?) is railing/campaigning against humanoids (but then lists the rather-humanoid Annihilator in the same grouping ).

YAY for non-humanoid mechs. I'm really tired of the same type of mechs...

That's how I too interpret OPs post.

However, the Annihilator is not really homanoid looking. Or lets say it could be designed to not look humanoid. more like a stalker with huge arms and head.

I think what really could look awesome would be an Alex Iglesias version of a Stone Rhino

Edited by TexAss, 18 August 2013 - 02:58 PM.

[TexAce]

Garth Erlam, on 13 August 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

[color=cyan]Just to make sure it's clear, it's largely a work/code/etc issue for why this isn't done. Multi-legged NPC's/Mechs/characters/etc are incredibly difficult to animate and code in, and this would be upwards of 3-4 times the work of a 'normal' Mech. It's not we don't want to, it's just more effort for roughly the same gain. Does that make sense?[/color]

Just to be clear, since a lot of the OPs proposed mechs are NOT actually 4-legged, most of them would be possible and not take more work than a usual mech.

With that said, give us the KING!