Why do people hate/dislike Quad mechs?
#1
Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:37 AM
#2
Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:39 AM
#3
Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:41 AM
#4
Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:41 AM
And the Barghest will killi them all
Edited by Karl Streiger, 22 June 2012 - 02:41 AM.
#5
Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:41 AM
#6
Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:43 AM
Reality is they are far more stable. Could lasso an Atlas and pull it off its feet. Hell they would fall about on the terrain in this game. They would trip up over the big rocks.
#7
Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:44 AM
#8
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:01 AM
- More total armour. (Construction rules say so. ) -> Useful on the TT, but i think it's of limited use in a MW game. (Hind legs would be "covered" by front legs most of the time, so no real advantage there. )
- Higher stability. -> Might matter if falling down due to rough terrain or damage taken is implemented in MWO.
Disadvantages of a quad:
- No arm weapons, thus they only have the front firing zone. -> And in terms of MWO the disadvantage of the slower weapon alignment.
- No torso twisting! -> So whenever you attack an enemy, you go towards him in a straight line, making you rather easy to hit. And you have to turn your complete mech to counter movement, where he can twist his torso much faster.
To use them well, quads would require much better positioning and planing from the pilot than any bipedal mech, making them perform badly on the average and making most players disregard them.
In the TT they are a viable choice when used in group. (Very vulnerable when solo. ) In any MW game i have my doubts that they'd more than the occisional "white elephant" use.
#9
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:05 AM
In TT, Quad mechs just have more disadvantages than advantages.
You sacrifice 12 crit slots you could theoretically fill with weapons or equipment (or armor/structure) and mostly have a rather limited torso twist.
You are more stable, but have a drastically higher chance of losing a leg thanks to different hit tables, denying that advantage.
Thus, it is relatively hard to configure a quad mech offensively, and that seems to be what most people like.
They are pretty sturdy, though.
Edited by UnLimiTeD, 22 June 2012 - 03:15 AM.
#10
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:05 AM
Sylow, on 22 June 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:
- More total armour. (Construction rules say so. ) -> Useful on the TT, but i think it's of limited use in a MW game. (Hind legs would be "covered" by front legs most of the time, so no real advantage there. )
- Higher stability. -> Might matter if falling down due to rough terrain or damage taken is implemented in MWO.
You didnt mention increased mobility
Faster turning speed, ability to move sideways, lateral movement, in the game they could probably even move diagonally, the ability to hull-down to make it even a smaller target which is with some mechs one of their +'s like Scorpion and the bipedal Bushwacker have very low profiles which in TT make them harder to shoot at, and in the game it would probably translate pretty well since its harder to hit somethig shorter than a huge *** atlas stomping nearby
#11
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:05 AM
These make them decent for stand off style mechs, but rough for brawling. Adding JJ to a fast scout also helps cover for lack of torso twist, and the mech can still use the superior lateral mobility to advantage. So basically they are a lot harder to get to work properly. And the vastly different control mode would be extra work to implement in a computer game, so I don't expect to see one any time soon.
My view of a good Quad is a fast mech with good armor, and a direct fire arsenal focused on long range. (like Gauss rifles)
Edited by latdheretic, 22 June 2012 - 03:07 AM.
#12
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:06 AM
#13
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:07 AM
UnLimiTeD, on 22 June 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:
You sacrifice 12 crit slots you could theoretically fill with weapons or equipment (or armor/structure) and mostly have a rather limited torso twist.
You are more stable, but have a drastically higher chance of losing a leg thanks to different hit tables, denying that advantage.
Thus, it is relatively hard to configure a quad mech offensively, and that seems to be what most people like.
They are pretty sturdy, though.
Sure you have higher chance to lose a leg, but losing a leg for a quad isnt as bad as losing a leg for a biped
If a biped loses 1 leg it basicly crawls, quad loses 1 leg, it simply cant move sideways as minor decrease in speed, ALSO im pretty sure according to lore a quad could still more while having only 1 leg left
#14
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:09 AM
The Xanthos 5O is about the best of the breed. Jumpy + Pulsey = Nice
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Xanthos
#15
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:10 AM
Edited by CCC Dober, 22 June 2012 - 03:12 AM.
#16
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:11 AM
Nikol Grall, on 22 June 2012 - 03:09 AM, said:
The Xanthos 5O is about the best of the breed. Jumpy + Pulsey = Nice
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Xanthos
My second favorite mech, shame it's extict atm
#18
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:14 AM
#20
Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:16 AM
7 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users