257 replies to this topic

[Captain Stiffy]

I think they should be able to strafe at 1/4 acceleration and 1/10th max speed.

[Axeman1]

Look if you want to make gundam online I'm all for it but how about we leave dodging in hundred tonne mechs out of what realism battletech is going for.

[Darth Buddha]

According to lore they could side step.... even if very slow....

[Captain Stiffy]

Darth Buddha, on 17 December 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

According to lore they could side step.... even if very slow....

This. Anything can work if it's tuned properly.

[Daggett]

Fierostetz, on 26 July 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

That's pretty basic maneuvering - there's lateral movement afforded by the actuators in the legs... in lore they're able to crouch, sidestep, etc. - I'm hoping it would add a new dynamic to combat, and remove some of the danger of massive alphas, i.e. sidestep the ppc's, then go to work while the target's ppc's are cycling. I don't know if the current skeleton of the mechs' 3d models is capable though, it might take reworking which would = a no go.

Im not sure if i would like such a sidestep, probably not. But beside that i don't think that it is doable when you look at how BT-mechs are structured. Just take a look at the stalker at the right side. There is no joint which would allow such a movement. Whatever an animator would try to make this mech go sideways would look silly. At this point it simply doesn't matter what lore says, because reality (TT-rules, how mechs actually look/work) proves lore false.

The only way a bipedal mech goes sideways in any scenario i know is by additional thrusters/wheels like in hawken or typical japanese-style mechas. But in my opinion this is not BT and i would not like to see this here. It's silly enough that assaults can skyrocket as high as they do right now. Adding sidesteps powered by thrusters or wheels would kill any BT-feeling for me...

Edit: I admit that i have not read the entire 11 pages, so please forgive me if my points have been already discussed...

Edited by Daggett, 17 December 2013 - 04:04 PM.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Quote

Let Us Side-Step/strafe.

This is not BF/COD or any game of that sort...sorry but NO>!

Thanatos676, on 26 July 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

No, just no...
this isn't hawken..

And this ^^^.

[Clit Beastwood]

Daggett, on 17 December 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

The only way a bipedal mech goes sideways in any scenario i know is by additional thrusters/wheels like in hawken or typical japanese-style mechas. But in my opinion this is not BT and i would not like to see this here. It's silly enough that assaults can skyrocket as high as they do right now. Adding sidesteps powered by thrusters or wheels would kill any BT-feeling for me...

Edit: I admit that i have not read the entire 11 pages, so please forgive me if my points have been already discussed...

I should've left "strafe" out of the description. I don't want to quickly shoot side to side - just take a shuffling step to the side. Example- driving an atlas and you hit a rock that you can't climb over (now thats a whooooole other thread!!!) - instead of stopping, turning, going forward, turning back to original course and continuing on... you could step around it.

And yeah it's discussed very thoroughly in the previous pages - basically, mechs have hip rotators (they wouldn't be able to walk otherwise - they'd fall when traversing slopes laterally, they wouldn't be able to lean into turns like they actually do right now).

xMEPHISTOx, on 17 December 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

This is not BF/COD or any game of that sort...sorry but NO>!
And this ^^^.

Neat gif cool guy, read the prior 10 pages and you'll see that you're barking up the wrong tree. Or you could just fly by an old thread and remind everyone you haven't much to offer

The need for lateral movement has been somewhat mitigated by the adjustment to ppc speeds and ghost heat. Pop tarts really aren't nearly as much of a threat as when I started the thread. I personally pilot light mechs - the thread was largely a reaction to seeing, match after match, people being cockpitted from across the map by dual ppc / gauss boats.

Edited by Fierostetz, 17 December 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Quote

just take a shuffling step to the side. Example- driving an atlas and you hit a rock that you can't climb over (now thats a whooooole other thread!!!) - instead of stopping, turning, going forward, turning back to original course and continuing on... you could step around it.

Your proposal sounds more like training wheels than anything. Am I to assume that you liked the idea of 3pv so you could see these obstacles that you feel you need a sidestep for? Seriously what you speak of is easily resolved by being aware of your surroundings and piloting your mech.
Hawken has strafing...that should be all that needs to be said tbh.
As for your insult, I will take the higher road and ignore.



Nuff said. However I do not 'hate' your idea, simply disagree.

Darth Buddha, on 17 December 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

According to lore they could side step.... even if very slow....

Can you please provide a link to this info>? I would be interested in reading this as I have been playing BT/MW for over 20 years in one form or the other and have yet to see strafing involved, not to say your wrong but would need documented evidence of such a claim.


***Edited for addition.

Edited by xMEPHISTOx, 17 December 2013 - 05:16 PM.

[Darth Buddha]

http://mwomercs.com/...cockpit-layout/




13- Foot movement Control Pedals - Located on the cockpit floor at the front. These are normally used to control which way the 'Mech turns. They also activate the 'Mech's jumpjets (if it is so equipped), and control the 'Mech's legs while kick-mode is activated. To turn the 'Mech to the left, you press down on the left pedal; to turn to the right, press down on the right pedal.

More Complex movements can be done with the foot controls - they can be unlocked and move on other axies besides just up and down - for instance, to get the 'Mech to side step.

In order to activate the 'Mech's jumpjets, you quickly press down fully on both pedals; doing so again will deactivate the jump jets. Directional control while jumping is usually achieved with the foot pedals. More complex air-borne maneuvers involve the use of the joystick - for instance, the reticule on the HUD can be used pick a landing point. The jump jets achieve this directional control by feathering or by the use of control surfaces.

EDIT: The biggest reason why this may never be added is because it would require new animation.... I could be wrong though...

Edited by Darth Buddha, 17 December 2013 - 05:40 PM.

[Clit Beastwood]

xMEPHISTOx, on 17 December 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Your proposal sounds more like training wheels than anything. Am I to assume that you liked the idea of 3pv so you could see these obstacles that you feel you need a sidestep for? Seriously what you speak of is easily resolved by being aware of your surroundings and piloting your mech.
Hawken has strafing...that should be all that needs to be said tbh.
As for your insult, I will take the higher road and ignore.



Nuff said. However I do not 'hate' your idea, simply disagree.



Can you please provide a link to this info>? I would be interested in reading this as I have been playing BT/MW for over 20 years in one form or the other and have yet to see strafing involved, not to say your wrong but would need documented evidence of such a claim.


***Edited for addition.

Not an FPS fan, and as I posted previously, the need for this is largely mitigated by the slower projectile speed.

And "lore" typically pertains to the novels, and there's some batpoo crazy maneuvers therein (also discussed in the preceding pages, several times) - I don't play hawken because it's lame. Also, as I said in my last post, I regret the use of the word "strafe" - it was utilized to give the idea of sideways movement, when what I really wanted was a single step or two to the side. No haha, I don't play in 3pv and I have no problems playing the game as-is. I was seeing lots of chunky mechs getting blasted out in the open during the gauss/ppc meta, when projectiles were moving too quickly for an atlas to change course. I don't drive atlai, but I was getting tired of our team being down by 3 mechs if we spawned on the open side of alpine since they were too slow to make it across open ground before the "snipers" lined up on the ridge

Seriously though, give the 10 preceding pages a read, there's some good discussion in there.

[ManDaisy]

Mechs should be able to side step and strafe... provided they are near standstill, like under 30% throttle. Or else doing a side step running at full speed is a little too much like mechanized ballarinary.

Edited by ManDaisy, 18 December 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[Ineffigy]

Hellcat420, on 26 July 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

read the whole statement not just cherry pick what you want. you also need to remember that just becasue its in a novel doesnt mean that is actually how they worked. they take some artistic license in order to make the books seem cool so they can sell a bunch of them to make money. it wouldnt make for a very good book if the mechs were falling over a lot trying to do this kind of stuff, would it.

According the the rule books, the mech can go down on a knee, you can also go prone. You can pick up trees and use them like a club. Mechs do not hop. You have to remember, these are WALKING TANKS. And they act like tanks. The main advantage is that they can go over more terrain than standard tanks. They are the best of both worlds between hover craft and standard tanks.

[Fabe]

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.

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

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).
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)...

Gremlich Johns, on 30 August 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

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.

I think I would have to side with strum, while Lord of All and Gremlich are right that a unit can not 'side step' into a new hex I don't think that means mechs can not side step at all its just that can't side step fast enough to traverse the 30 meters distance that makes up a hex in the 10 seconds that makes up one turn.

Edited by Fabe, 18 December 2013 - 08:04 PM.

[ArchSight]

Your Idea is not absolutly needed to make a mech game. It will make CW, UI 2.0 and many other features come out slower if implemented with the devs schedule. Medium mechs already can dodge projectiles or spread damage by moving back and forth, parrellel to the shooting enemy mech. Deceleration and acceleration improves the chances of this manuever to throw off a players aim while leading their shots. As a medium mech pilot i'm always taking advantage of this with my wide flanking medium mech builds. It's not only speed that makes it possible but a combination of distance traveled + speed + damage drop off.

Edited by ArchSight, 19 December 2013 - 04:51 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

side-step strafing is called torso twist around here

[ManDaisy]

No... side step is called a side step.

[XtremWarrior]

Always so funny to see people always refering about "Lore" ending up saying the opposite.
Fact is BT as several different "Lores": from the novels and the from the TT game.
In BT novels, Mechs are build with muscle-like components and are almost as agile as a human, while they're only limited by their driver's skills.
In games, Mechs are slow and clumsy armored vehicle not even able to crouch because it was too hard to rule or program that kind of things...

Now people just made their call with this poll, they don't want the mobility suggested by the novels (crouching, picking up things to use them as weapon, even bowing - what a picture), they want WoT - with big, slow and dumb machines (Skirmish mode just illustrated that fact pretty well).

[Turist0AT]

Why have legs if we cant do sidesteps, why have arms if we cant malee. God, all the inconsistensies in this game.

[C E Dwyer]

This is only slightly less unpopular then third person view

I'm guessing, Community warfare and U.I.2 will be delayed another year now, just so P.G.I can add this pointless addition that brings nothing to the game.

Just saying

Runs from the torrent of abuse

[C E Dwyer]

XtremWarrior, on 24 December 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

Always so funny to see people always refering about "Lore" ending up saying the opposite.
Fact is BT as several different "Lores": from the novels and the from the TT game.
In BT novels, Mechs are build with muscle-like components and are almost as agile as a human, while they're only limited by their driver's skills.
In games, Mechs are slow and clumsy armored vehicle not even able to crouch because it was too hard to rule or program that kind of things...

Now people just made their call with this poll, they don't want the mobility suggested by the novels (crouching, picking up things to use them as weapon, even bowing - what a picture), they want WoT - with big, slow and dumb machines (Skirmish mode just illustrated that fact pretty well).

I don't disagree with what your saying, but when the lore was originally made, it was nearly a complete rip off of gundam and just about every robot manga that came from Japan (not crusher joe) where they were big giant metal ninja, westernising the machines and making them operate more 'realistically' is the big step that makes battle tech more 'sensible'.

This was dragged out and kept in by the novel writers, to make the battles seem more dramatic, when it should have been put to bed and forgotten years ago.

My opinions of the novels 'quality' and I do own a couple, are seconded only by the creation of the clans, both did nothing for the actual game quality, and both in my opinion a complete waste of ink and tree's.

Give in another fifteen-twenty years and its not to far from the fantastic, that the writers of both might be indited for barkisied

after all people now Major in klingon *face palms*