141 replies to this topic

[Manny Rhyde]

also if you look at it, quads can be fitted with a weapons turret on some of them, eliminating the need to torso twist, i love quads

[Nikol Grall]

Stormeris, on 22 June 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

According to lore Its the first Quadruped mech taht went extinct... >.>

That particular model is 3075.

Technically it has yet to be re-discovered. The Xanthos is Lostech.

Edited by Nikol Grall, 22 June 2012 - 03:23 AM.

[Stormeris]

Nikol Grall, on 22 June 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

That particular model is 3075.

Technically it has yet to be re-discovered. The Xanthos is Lostech.

I know, i was talking about the original variant.

[Slepnir]

Dislike quads? what madness is this?

granted some quads are not capable of torso twist and most have limited critical space, but they make up for it in the right environment and with the right weapons package cinsideirng the stability of the platform.

among my favorite quads

.barghest(4t )
.goliath 4S

.thunder stallion 2
.stalking spider

[LordDeathStrike]

Talz Romanov, on 22 June 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

I've noticed this before, and more recently after the Inner Sphere News flash. Why the particular dislike for these mechs?

the rules that govern them suck hard.

lose 1 leg, movement is crippled, even as a quad.

with all 4 legs in working order, you have no torso twist, and you turn slower then torso twist + turn speed on bipeds, so you are so easily flanked its not funny.

no arm weapons, duh

slow, for the engine size they carry, they are 25%+ slower then bipeds.

in conclusion, they didnt catch on because they are crap.

[Stormeris]

LordDeathStrike, on 22 June 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

the rules that govern them suck hard.

lose 1 leg, movement is crippled, even as a quad.

with all 4 legs in working order, you have no torso twist, and you turn slower then torso twist + turn speed on bipeds, so you are so easily flanked its not funny.

no arm weapons, duh

slow, for the engine size they carry, they are 25%+ slower then bipeds.

in conclusion, they didnt catch on because they are crap.

[UnLimiTeD]

If they had an extra critical spot in the legs, or 6 more in the CT, or a crit-free turret, or sidesteppind without MP penalties, or whatever, they might be better competition, though.
If you take a Grand Turtle and upgrade it with clan Missile launchers, it can be quite the sight, but... meh. What isn't?

[sgt coloncrunch]

Talz Romanov, on 22 June 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

I've noticed this before, and more recently after the Inner Sphere News flash. Why the particular dislike for these mechs?

Quad BattleMech's are a highly unreliable implementation of the technology. Far less durable, additionally further prone to mechanical failure.

Granted by the time the Jihad & Dark Ages are around, it's apparently been perfected, but still the dmg is done. Then you've got the 135 Ton Colossi with their Tri Legged configuration.

[Slepnir]

LordDeathStrike, on 22 June 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

the rules that govern them suck hard.

lose 1 leg, movement is crippled, even as a quad.

with all 4 legs in working order, you have no torso twist, and you turn slower then torso twist + turn speed on bipeds, so you are so easily flanked its not funny.

no arm weapons, duh

slow, for the engine size they carry, they are 25%+ slower then bipeds.

in conclusion, they didnt catch on because they are crap.

what the heck rules are you reading?

speaking TT here if you loose a leg you auto fall however you stand back up as per a normal bi-ped and loose the -2 modifier to pilot checks your movement is otherwise un-impared unless you refer to dragging a leg.

You may need to turn instead of torso twist, but you can also sidestep so it balances out. also some quads have turrets and/or the abilty to torso twist.


Sure you have no arms weapon, but stand behind a level 1 hill and 2/3 of the shots that hit you hit the hillside. quads also genereal have more armor or otherwise soak more because of the heavy armor on the legs.

Quads do not operate in a vacumn(they are part of a lance/star) so the speed difference is neglegible. and i am not really seeing a problem when my quads are generally a 4/6 or better even at 80 tons.

[Benaresh]

Sidestepping would be one big advantage in Urban warfare! Sliding in and out of Cover like Michael Jackson ^^

[Sylow]

Stormeris, on 22 June 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

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

I didn't mention them because even in the TT they were of limited value, and i doubt we'd have any of it in MWO. Anyways, let's look at what you mention:

- Better movement: In the TT the quad can "sidestep". A maneuver which costs 2 movement points, instead of 3 on a normal mech. Unless fighting in a city map, the sidestep very rarely is of even limited use. To mimic it, MWO would have to allow quads to strafe, which would be well outside the parameters of the controls they already presented, not to mention that the Artemis controler, which is advertised as "made for MWO" would not support it. I thus conclude that this will not happen.

- Hull down: that's what we had as "crouch" in MW3. (On bipedal mechs, all the same. ) It sure can be implemented, but hey, the profile would change from this: /°\ to this /o\. (Damn, you, ASCII, for the limited drawing abilities... but i hope you can figure out what i mean. ) The mechs profile would be closer to the ground, but not smaller, and all that at the price of not moving any more, thus being an easy target. No good in a MW game.

- Smaller profile: On the comparison of Atlas and Scorption: Indeed, the Atlas stands double as tall, but the Scorpion is twice as wide. As you already mentioned, the bipedal Bushwhacker supposedly has a smaller profile, but that one's not much of a quad, so it's smaller profile also can't be accounted as an advantage of a quad.

Edited by Sylow, 22 June 2012 - 03:50 AM.

[Youngblood]

Going to parrot a couple of posts above for emphasis. Thanks, Slepnir.

There is no speed difference. A Tarantula is just as fast and and can jump just as far as a Spider while carrying the same MORE weapons.

The arm weapon issue is offset by the fact that under current TT rules, Quads are protected by Partial Cover terrain they stand behind on rolls of 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11.

For the most part lack of torso twist and the necessity for sidestepping have mostly been exacerbated problems caused by poor FASA 'Mech design. Newer weapons and technologies, as well as less ****** writers, have made Quads far more relevant both in-universe and out-.

[TheSprinkle]

I've always liked the quads, just because they are a more stable firing platform. I think some people don't like the fact that some 'mechs (i.e. Sirrocco) look like AT-ATs.

[Promptus]

0 degree torso twist. Next question.

[Lord Exalted]

i would be okay with a few qaud mechs being added at a later date. maybe to fill a fire support role like the cata. if they are high skill thats fine to me i love things thrown in game that are only good when used by a good player

[Sergeant Rockso]

Cuz they aren't giant robot; they are mad-scientist machine!

Take your quad-mechs and go away with them and marry them if you like them so much!

[Jukebox1986]

More Legs, more Fun!

[Blastkowitz]

To each their own I say. I really do not see the point in biped vs. quad. Good and bad on both so whatever floats you boat. Although some have mentioned that quads only have a front firing arc because of lack of torso twist. Off the top of my head I can not point to a particular quad mech by name, but I would think quads would not really have this problem since they can still use a turret and said turret could have multiple guns aimed throughout the various 360 arc.

Edited by Blastkowitz, 22 June 2012 - 04:22 AM.

[Hell Grunt]

The problem with Quads are that the TT rules were made with bipeds in mind, realistically a Quad mech would be superior in almost every way to a biped of the same class.

Better weight distribution, faster (depending on leg distribution, better center of gravity, more stability, better climbing ability (depending on leg distribution), the addition of turreted weapons (Oh you got behind me, good for you, have an AC/20 cookie), easier to hide and take cover, ability to mount heavier weapons, etc...

Bipedal mechs simply aren't feasible for war in real life, something that quad mechs would have less trouble even though a good tracked vehicle still does their job better and cheaper.

[Force Nova]

Sergeant Rockso, on 22 June 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

Cuz they aren't giant robot; they are mad-scientist machine!

Take your quad-mechs and go away with them and marry them if you like them so much!

Forums are for open discussion and opinions. If you can not respect the opinions presented, then either you need to learn to do so or leave your unnecessary comments to yourself.

What comes for quads, I haven't seen them in MW 4: Mercenaries that I played back then, but I've used them in Chrome Hounds, Armored Core: For Answer and Front Mission Evolved, and there the shared trait was stability, but only in Armored Core were the quads more mobile than bipeds, in the other two the quads were more for heavy weapons, being able to carry more weight and having the stability to use the heavy weapons without the recoil pushing your aim way off after each shot.

If quads were a bit like in Front Mission Evolved, I could use one for making a excellent fire support platform.