257 replies to this topic

[Bendak]

Strum Wealh, on 28 August 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Thuneral is referring to a BattleTech novel called Far Country (available as a free e-book here), where a DCMS JumpShip misjumps and is stranded in a sector of space away from the IS inhabited by a relatively-primitive, bird-like species called the Tetatae.

Cool, now I'm all over this. Can you remind me how this is relevant to game play mechanics?

[Clit Beastwood]

Well, I'd love to shoot a bird with a PPC... but that's just me

[Strum Wealh]

Bendak, on 28 August 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

Cool, now I'm all over this. Can you remind me how this is relevant to game play mechanics?

It would seem that Thuneral was attempting to make an argument against side-stepping by appealing to the notion that the Tetatae (a canonical element of BT, albeit a generally unpopular one) have an equally valid set of reasons for being added - or, alternatively, that the case against adding side-stepping as a maneuvering option in MWO is just as strong/valid/etc as the case against adding the Tetatae as a faction in MWO.

Not that that's necessarily the case, however, as there are several canonical examples of BattleMechs performing a side-step maneuver (including the description from which the Pretty Baby is derived - "In one instance, she literally skipped aside with her Awesome, the Pretty Baby, to avoid an incoming missile strike aimed at her."), and such a sidestep could/would arguably fall under BattleTech's "Evading (Movement Mode)" gameplay (rules presented on page 18 of Tactical Operations).

Quote

Evading enables a unit to avoid enemy attacks.

A unit’s Evading MP equals its Running/Flanking MP, and any attack against an Evading unit suffers a +1 to-hit modifier, in addition to its normal movement modifier and any other applicable modifiers. An Evading unit generates 2 Heat Points per turn, in addition to the standard 2 Heat Points for running, and may not make any attack during the turn it used Evading movement.

To use Evading movement, a ’Mech must have two working hip actuators. Also, a prone ’Mech receives no benefit from Evading movement, even if it started the Movement Phase using Evading movement.

Also, fun fact: the "Kaetetôã" section of the forum (within "Jettisoned Communications") is named after the Tetatae homeworld.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 28 August 2013 - 10:38 PM.

[TexAce]

Fierostetz, on 28 August 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

They don't have ankles either, but they seem to walk on slopes just fine.
In fact, back on page 3 or 4 this topic is addressed. Basically, the mechs as drawn in their tech schematics don't even utilize myomer bundles, though the tech schematics for some mechs *do* feature axial joints, which would allow for the movement required to step sideways. Thanks for your contribution to the thread. The tech schematics on page 3 or 4 are pretty awesome - if you check them out, I think they're print-able and might make cool wall art

It's sweet how you argument for your idea but the vote result is pretty clear, no?
Most of us don't want the mechs to be even more human like. hopping and strafing is such human-like behavior. There are a lot shooters out there with humans, let's keep this one a mech on feet shooter.
Knee down to stabilize for big weapons, ok. Use the arm to pull or lift something, ok. But not this.

Edited by TexAss, 29 August 2013 - 09:25 AM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Lugh, on 29 July 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

turn legs to the 180degree point of where you will be firing ..twist torso to face where you are firing.

Step out. Fire, step back.

Mechanic request exist.
Pilot error in achieving mechanical operation of mech per design detected.

This is what mechs from BT are really able to do. To strafe, you must be flying an aircraft. Anything else make a BT-BASED game NOT a BT-based game, irrespective of whatever argument you find in the science fiction done after the TT came out.

[Gremlich Johns]

General Taskeen, on 21 August 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

The female pilot that used the Awesome known as "Pretty Baby" from canon could "side-step" her Mech, which is apparently how she avoided LRM volley's as they almost hit her Mech at the last moment.

She also wheeled her mech about which means, unambiguously, that she turned her mech to avoid something.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 29 August 2013 - 05:24 PM.

[Lord of All]

Stories are not Canon whether they are in the BT universe or not..

[Strum Wealh]

Lord of All, on 29 August 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

Stories are not Canon whether they are in the BT universe or not..

Actually, they rather explicitly are canonical...

Quote

Whatever we establish for research material for the authors is canon.

Currently, that list includes:

• All sourcebooks and novels produced for BattleTech by FASA and Roc in the United States
  
• All sourcebooks and novels produced for Classic BattleTech by FanPro and Roc in the United States
  
• All sourcebooks and novels (including electronic publications, such as BattleCorps) produced by InMediaRes (and its subsidiaries, BattleCorps and Catalyst Game Labs) in the United States
  
• All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines

GENERAL INCLUSIVE NOTE: There are a few select instances where a story or article appearing even in these sources may be considered non-canon, but generally this is because the material was in error (such as date mishaps like original TRO3025's claim that the Zeus emerged from Defiance before the Mackie was even built OR Defiance even existed as such), or it was specifically published as a gag (such as Loren Coleman's infamous "Chapter 6" on BattleCorps).

Quote

Computer games and the material printed only in Germany (with the exception of the Founding of the Clans novels by Randall Bills) are not considered canonical.

[Gremlich Johns]

Irrespective of any arguments found in the accepted canon fiction for side-stepping, the mechs are not designed in the fiction to do so. You must consider that the diagrams people have presented against such a mech feature are ALSO canonical and must be considered as more prima facie proof against the desired capability despite the appearance within the Stackpole-esk fiction. Unless the legs are connected to the mechs "hip" by a ball-in-socket joint, the mechs in BT cannot physically side-step. Sure, maybe the mecha in Fang of the Sun: Dougram or Macross, Mospaeda, Razephon, etc can, but not in BT. I would rather PGI concentrate on hit registration on lights better. In fact, I want lights to fall over when hit with an alpha within 150m or when pounded with several LRM20 volleys at once.

Now, the so called "strafing": If you want to move from one side to side or pop out from behind cover to shoot an opponent, you'll have to be happy with MW:O not having the capability beyond being able to fire your weapons as you move from point A to Point B in a line with your lower mech body moving perpendicular to your target and your torso facing the target. That, btw, is not technically strafing. It has become popularized in the gamer community as such, but it is not strafing in the strictest sense. (not saying you are wrong, just a little inaccurate) The wiki entry on strafing is pretty clear as a definition. And word definitions evolve.

Oh, and somebody suggested that side-stepping/strafing would make mediums and lights more effective.

Mate, if someone cannot pilot a Hunchie 4G to get more than 300 points, then they stink as a mech pilot. I regularly get between 400-800 points of damage with my HBK-4G(F) in matches, even in some that I am on the losing side of.

Even in 12v12. (and yes, I have screen captures to prove it)

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 29 August 2013 - 05:47 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Gremlich Johns, on 29 August 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Irrespective of any arguments found in the accepted canon fiction for side-stepping, the mechs are not designed in the fiction to do so. You must consider that the diagrams people have presented against such a mech feature are ALSO canonical and must be considered as more prima facie proof against the desired capability despite the appearance within the Stackpole-esk fiction. Unless the legs are connected to the mechs "hip" by a ball-in-socket joint, the mechs in BT cannot physically side-step. Sure, maybe the mecha in Fang of the Sun: Dougram or Macross, Mospaeda, Razephon, etc can, but not in BT. I would rather PGI concentrate on hit registration on lights better. In fact, I want lights to fall over when hit with an alpha within 150m or when pounded with several LRM20 volleys at once.

And as the one who linked/posted the aforementioned diagrams in this thread, I would note that the more prominent Mad Cat diagram (the head-on cutaway) is in error, as it shows what is supposed to be the primary configuration as being equipped with ER PPCs in place of the ER Large Lasers, and carrying both an extra Medium Pulse Laser and two extra ER Small Lasers (all of which would put the 'Mech ~7 tons - almost 10% of its total mass - overweight).

That brings us back to the "General Inclusive Note" from the BT Line Developer: "There are a few select instances where a story or article appearing even in [the acknowledged/designated canonical sources] may be considered non-canon, but generally this is because the material was in error..."

So, why should a relatively small number of diagrams - at least one of which is demonstrably and factually incorrect, at that - necessarily be "considered as more prima facie proof against the desired capability" than the more-numerous canonical text descriptions (from multiple BT authors) in favor of the capability? Especially when other diagrams (most notably, the Atlas and Warhammer cutaways) show internal layouts that would imply that they (among others) possess the capability?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 29 August 2013 - 06:45 PM.

[Lord of All]

Whenever a "Story book" conflicts with rulesets It is not considered canon. Ruleset trumps all. The ruleset specifically states a mech must change facing to change direction.

Page 14. READ IT.

http://www.battletec...ry_Rulebook.pdf

There is even a nice little picture that shows sidestep is not allowed.

Edited by Lord of All, 29 August 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[Grey Black]

My response is : Do mechs have actuators that allow that sort of movement? My impression looking at the TROs, was that most mechs lack the articulation to perform this maneuver. Look at the Jenner for exampl. Or the centurion. Or the atlas. Or the jager. Or...

Long story short, no. Short story long, read something by Stephen King.

[Strum Wealh]

Lord of All, on 29 August 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Whenever a "Story book" conflicts with rulesets It is not considered canon. Ruleset trumps all. The ruleset specifically states a mech must change facing to change direction.

Page 14. READ IT.

http://www.battletec...ry_Rulebook.pdf

There is even a nice little picture that shows sidestep is not allowed.

The same diagram, with more descriptive accompanying text, is also on page 49 of Total Warfare.
"A unit can move forward into the hex it is facing or backward into the hex directly to its rear. It cannot move into any other hex unless it first changes its facing."

Note that a 'Mech "cannot move into any other hex unless it first changes its facing"; the statement is primarily concerned with hex-to-hex movement, but does not necessarily rule out the notion of small side-steps within the area a single hex (which, recall, is representative of an area ~30 meters in diameter) over the course of the movement phase.

As noted previously, the "Evading (Movement Mode)" gameplay rules (presented on page 18 of Tactical Operations) would be more than adequate to convey the idea of small (say, ≤5 meters) and relatively slow (such that the 30-meter distance cannot be traversed within a 10-second period) side-steps within the area of a single hex, which is generally what is being described in the BT literature (e.g. making small side-steps, typically while approaching an opponent).

Quote

Evading enables a unit to avoid enemy attacks.

A unit’s Evading MP equals its Running/Flanking MP, and any attack against an Evading unit suffers a +1 to-hit modifier, in addition to its normal movement modifier and any other applicable modifiers. An Evading unit generates 2 Heat Points per turn, in addition to the standard 2 Heat Points for running, and may not make any attack during the turn it used Evading movement.

To use Evading movement, a ’Mech must have two working hip actuators. Also, a prone ’Mech receives no benefit from Evading movement, even if it started the Movement Phase using Evading movement.

-----

Under the Skilled Evading option, the to-hit modifier gained from Evading movement is based on the MechWarrior’s Piloting Skill, as shown in the Skilled Evading Table.

Quote

Expanded Movement Costs and Planetary Conditions Tables (TacOps, pg. 34)
Movement Action/Base Terrain Type: Evading (Movement Mode)
MP Cost Per Hex/Terrain Cost: +0
To-Hit Modifier: +0
Piloting/Driving Skill Modifier: +1
Prohibited Units: Vehicles, Rail, Naval Vessels

Also, note that there doesn't seem to be anything necessarily preventing a Quad 'Mech otherwise capable of making a forward lateral shift (Total Warfare, pg. 50) from also "evading" while doing so (perhaps visualizable as a relatively small (say, ≤5 meters) forward/backward zig-zag or sinusoidal motion while also moving sideways)...

[Ghastly]

I vote no to sidestepping because that wasn't in any of the other games, though Mechwarrior 2 (and I think Mechwarrior 3 advertized that you could do it, but I don't recall if I ever got it working) let you jet to the side, but I don't know how well that would work on slopes.

[Gremlich Johns]

Strum Wealh, on 29 August 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Note that a 'Mech "cannot move into any other hex unless it first changes its facing"; the statement is primarily concerned with hex-to-hex movement, but does not necessarily rule out the notion of small side-steps within the area a single hex (which, recall, is representative of an area ~30 meters in diameter) over the course of the movement phase.

That's a real stretch in logic.

Yes, it does rule out the possibility because it is not explicit (hell, not even implicit). Also page 14 in http://www.battletec...ry_Rulebook.pdf

and "changes its facing" explicitly eliminates side-stepping which would not be such, instead being more a matter of a lateral change in position.

[Clit Beastwood]

Grey Black, on 29 August 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

My response is : Do mechs have actuators that allow that sort of movement? My impression looking at the TROs, was that most mechs lack the articulation to perform this maneuver. Look at the Jenner for exampl. Or the centurion. Or the atlas. Or the jager. Or...

Long story short, no. Short story long, read something by Stephen King.

If you look at the diagrams, they lack proper actuation to actually move at all.

Ghastly, on 30 August 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

I vote no to sidestepping because that wasn't in any of the other games, though Mechwarrior 2 (and I think Mechwarrior 3 advertized that you could do it, but I don't recall if I ever got it working) let you jet to the side, but I don't know how well that would work on slopes.

proper directional jumpjets are what I actually want, but I don't think thats gonna happen.

[Szegedin]

Gremlich Johns, on 29 August 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Irrespective of any arguments found in the accepted canon fiction for side-stepping, the mechs are not designed in the fiction to do so. You must consider that the diagrams people have presented against such a mech feature are ALSO canonical and must be considered as more prima facie proof against the desired capability despite the appearance within the Stackpole-esk fiction.

Not a BT enthusiast, but I was under the impression that artwork is generally not canonical as it is rife with errors and inconsistencies introduced by individual artists who may or may not be well versed in BT rules and technology.

Just a casual glance at the prominent cutaway designs shows that none even attempt to depict myomer, the artists have instead chosen to draw gears and pistons, a much more mundane understanding of machine movement.

There are very few cutaway's on the net that draw myomer., - this is the only one I can easily find



A proper cutaway of these mechs would show a human or animal-like skeletal frame, with myomer arranged in quasi-organic patterns to allow dynamic movements. I thought the whole idea of the battlemech and its neuro-interface was to create as close to a 1:1 relationship between the pilot and machine as possible, and that seems to suggest mech's that can sidestep, hop, kneel, crouch, and crawl - not to mention using their arms and hand actuators for a variety of human-like motions and actions from hand signals to ripping bits off each other.

All the computer games have featured a pretty rigid and tank-like presentation of the mechs.

You know the BT rules Gremlich, and from what you've referenced it seems the TT mechs are also constrained to relatively simple patterns of movement.

That surprises me a bit, as I always imagined the the turn-based TT game featuring a bevy of exotic movement rules. Since the rulebook is the only medium between the mech and your brain, I figured the options would be dauntingly unlimited.

Regardless, I have a feeling that there is room for a more fluid presentation of the machines in other media - The computer games are obviously not the TT game, and while they're inspired by TT they're not bound by it.

Though stuff like sidestepping, melee attacks, and manipulating would probably best be explored in a single-player Mech game with less pressing balance issues.

Edited by Szegedin, 04 September 2013 - 11:54 AM.

[Kissamies]

Typhoon Storm 2142, on 23 August 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

But it would be nice to be able to make a sidestep by double pressing A and D.

Those of us who use joystick to control movement can't double press, tho. The probable control would be holding down a "sidestep mode" key and then going left/right. One more control to bind, but I could manage it.

Of the whole topic I was initially negative, but now I'm kind of neutral. I'd be more interested in quad mechs that control more like in typical FPS games. Not that I really want those sort of controls, but the variety would be nice. Anyways, if those sort of mechs would be put in, this sidestep ability for bipedals could be also be implemented.

[Clit Beastwood]

Szegedin, on 04 September 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

Not a BT enthusiast, but I was under the impression that artwork is generally not canonical as it is rife with errors and inconsistencies introduced by individual artists who may or may not be well versed in BT rules and technology.

Just a casual glance at the prominent cutaway designs shows that none even attempt to depict myomer, the artists have instead chosen to draw gears and pistons, a much more mundane understanding of machine movement.

There are very few cutaway's on the net that draw myomer., - this is the only one I can easily find



A proper cutaway of these mechs would show a human or animal-like skeletal frame, with myomer arranged in quasi-organic patterns to allow dynamic movements. I thought the whole idea of the battlemech and its neuro-interface was to create as close to a 1:1 relationship between the pilot and machine as possible, and that seems to suggest mech's that can sidestep, hop, kneel, crouch, and crawl - not to mention using their arms and hand actuators for a variety of human-like motions and actions from hand signals to ripping bits off each other.

All the computer games have featured a pretty rigid and tank-like presentation of the mechs.

You know the BT rules Gremlich, and from what you've referenced it seems the TT mechs are also constrained to relatively simple patterns of movement.

That surprises me a bit, as I always imagined the the turn-based TT game featuring a bevy of exotic movement rules. Since the rulebook is the only medium between the mech and your brain, I figured the options would be dauntingly unlimited.

Regardless, I have a feeling that there is room for a more fluid presentation of the machines in other media - The computer games are obviously not the TT game, and while they're inspired by TT they're not bound by it.

Though stuff like sidestepping, melee attacks, and manipulating would probably best be explored in a single-player Mech game with less pressing balance issues.

I'm glad I'm not the other one bothered by the absolute lack of myomer in the tech schematics!

[Brockobi Samsobi]

Yes, it should come with a slightly random movement adjustment like the upper body moves slightly so you have to readjust aiming if you're sniping. Snipers are part of the game and the best way is to get out of their line of sight, find cover or get up close with a melee mech or keep moving.