141 replies to this topic

[Jukebox1986]

Vasces Diablo, on 22 June 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I think it's pretty clear those "furry half-hamsters" are in fact the greatest warriors in the galaxy. After all, they took out a whole regiment of troopers (and mechanized support) and took only a single casualty.

Jup, but thats only because the kids would have started crying...

[Blunty]

for my 2 cents - as a WoT player i can see these being used in a TD way extremly well

and variaty is the key to life , the more different mechs on offer makes for a more interesting array of strategies

[Stormeris]

Blunty, on 22 June 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

for my 2 cents - as a WoT player i can see these being used in a TD way extremly well

and variaty is the key to life , the more different mechs on offer makes for a more interesting array of strategies

I very much enjoyed using Tank Destroyers in WoT, Imagine one with the ability to walk sideways

[Tincan Nightmare]

DuncanPwnz, on 22 June 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Tripod break in thread!
http://www.sarna.net...es_(BattleMech)

I don't know who designed this, but how the hell does it even move ? Each of its 3 legs are pointed AWAY from each other. Take 3 steps and your mechs doing the splits.

For quads, I don't hate them per se but they are definetely not my cup of tea. However since there is nothing saying I would have to stop piloting a biped mech just because someone else is piloting a quad (unless they somehow screw up the game balance) they should have them for players that want them (if they can make it work.) Though you should get a bonus for attempting DFA's on a quad mech since you have a larger 'landing platform.'

[LordDeathStrike]

Tincan Nightmare, on 23 June 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

I don't know who designed this, but how the hell does it even move ? Each of its 3 legs are pointed AWAY from each other. Take 3 steps and your mechs doing the splits.

For quads, I don't hate them per se but they are definetely not my cup of tea. However since there is nothing saying I would have to stop piloting a biped mech just because someone else is piloting a quad (unless they somehow screw up the game balance) they should have them for players that want them (if they can make it work.) Though you should get a bonus for attempting DFA's on a quad mech since you have a larger 'landing platform.'

runs like a quad, 1 leg off the ground at a time. thats why they suck, they cant move for beans.

[Dredrik Salkon Kerensky]

Tincan Nightmare, on 23 June 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

I don't know who designed this, but how the hell does it even move ? Each of its 3 legs are pointed AWAY from each other. Take 3 steps and your mechs doing the splits.

For quads, I don't hate them per se but they are definetely not my cup of tea. However since there is nothing saying I would have to stop piloting a biped mech just because someone else is piloting a quad (unless they somehow screw up the game balance) they should have them for players that want them (if they can make it work.) Though you should get a bonus for attempting DFA's on a quad mech since you have a larger 'landing platform.'

Why are there 6 pedals when there are only 4 directions?

[Stormeris]

LordDeathStrike, on 23 June 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

runs like a quad, 1 leg off the ground at a time. thats why they suck, they cant move for beans.

So wrong, Newsflash bipeds run 1 leg off the ground too...

Quads touch the ground with 2 legs at the time, they simultanously lift opposite legs:
Front left leg and back right leg, then Front right leg and back left leg, which increases the stability, and where the hell did you come up with these idiotic, moronic nonsensical bullsh*t facts?

[Tote]

to be perfectly honest,, if we were presented with a choice of two stylesbetween my favorite mech games, (chrome hounds and MW/BT) i'd probbaly have to choose chrome hounds, due to the abiltiy to twist,, that in it self in a game like this where every bit of mobility counts for something, even your weapon allignment will matter, i'm assuming, if it were possible to get a Weapon cam mode for the gunnery, and stick an LRM or two on a turret mount ont eh "shoulder/back sections, of the torso,, i'd forsee some useabiltiy in them,, but ,, it'll probabaly end up beign one of those NPC garage pieces that you'll see but never want to use, kinda like havign a push mower at a drag race.

[Force Nova]

Tote, on 23 June 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

to be perfectly honest,, if we were presented with a choice of two stylesbetween my favorite mech games, (chrome hounds and MW/BT) i'd probbaly have to choose chrome hounds, due to the abiltiy to twist,, that in it self in a game like this where every bit of mobility counts for something, even your weapon allignment will matter, i'm assuming, if it were possible to get a Weapon cam mode for the gunnery, and stick an LRM or two on a turret mount ont eh "shoulder/back sections, of the torso,, i'd forsee some useabiltiy in them,, but ,, it'll probabaly end up beign one of those NPC garage pieces that you'll see but never want to use, kinda like havign a push mower at a drag race.

From what sense I could make out of that, I can say that I loved the Gunner support role back in Chrome Hounds. Essentially, some of the heaviest mechs around there. They'd have a slow but stable quad-legged platform but with a twisting torso, the cockpit and weapons effectively creating a turret. The thing that I really loved about the role was the BIG GUNS. Artillery guns like howitzers and such. Having like 6 of them on that mech was awesome. You could rain explosive death on enemies both from afar and at shorter ranges. If someone was foolish enough to come too close to you and you could handle the guns properly, you'd just pop all the guns in sequence and the enemy mech would likely be crippled if not destroyed outright.
Sadly there weren't that many players in the game at the time when I'd bought it, and after some time the whole online portion was shut down.

I for one would want actual artillery guns in MWO, and a mech made for using them.
I recall there was some "Long Tom"-gun in MW4: mercenaries, and that was artillery if my memory serves me right, but for some reason it didn't seem to have hardly any range at all, it was basically like a big grenade launcher, with the little malfunction that if you aimed straight while walking forwards you'd likely blow your legs off.

Edited by Force Nova, 11 July 2012 - 03:00 AM.

[Doublefrost]

If there were Quads in MWO, pilots would have to get used to being circle strafed and torn apart.

[AnubySet]

Quads are good weapons platforms, but turning and mobility would be reduced simply by the dinamic interaction of those four legs. As for triping up an Atlas....dont think so bro, my moneys on the Atlas tearing you legs off and beating you to death with them.

Edited by AnubySet, 11 July 2012 - 03:16 AM.

[ichiward]

Would love to see a quad mech but doubt they will do one. Many more mechs to come I'm sure.

[Force Nova]

Doublefrost, on 11 July 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

If there were Quads in MWO, pilots would have to get used to being circle strafed and torn apart.

Sadly that'd be the case if going by the BT rules, yes.

[Terror Teddy]

A few other points in regards to Mech simulators.

They are much closer to the ground making your LOS lower so your visual range might be impaired - at the same time you can scuttle behind cover a bit more easily.

They should be given the advantage to being able to sidestep though - that would give them a movement advantage.

Cover - Sidestep - Fire - Sidestep - back in Cover

Force Nova, on 16 July 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

Sadly that'd be the case if going by the BT rules, yes.

Somehow a quad mech should have the ability to circle strafe rather well - it doesnt have to TURN in the same manner but can instead usen their legs to swivel around their axis.

[Twisp]

SCOOOORRRRPPPIOOON

[Terror Teddy]

Twisp, on 16 July 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

SCOOOORRRRPPPIOOON

Now tell me quaddie cant tango around in a quick circle and blast stuff.

[3rdworld]

Can I play at your quad party?

[Picardkuro]

Not sure what TT is but comparing i find that MW and AC go hand in hand with a few differences and a few things that are alike. That being said I Use Quads in AC alot, most of the time (not counting boosters) the base land speed of a quad is higher, the stability is higher, and the turn rate is higher then your biped in the same general weight class. But also the Armor is lower and the Overall speed is lower then a light and some med bipeds. This means (in my way of wording it anyway) on level ground you can be out ran sooner or later, mountains and hills, not so much. Another advantage (Which will come in for MW) No knock back. Big impact guns will hit bloody hit hard, but you won't fall over taking hits trying to get up. I use my Quads as Snipers and spotters. If there is going to be quads in MWO you better hope it does allow for a big gun and a few light lasers. BOOM head shot. but again this is based of what i know from AC and how the 2 games are very close in physics.

[Targetloc]

Yiff in hell, quadfa... j/k

[KailKromier]

I imagine if they ever added Quads to the game it would look something like a cross between Chromehounds and Mechassault.

just imagine...Chromehound Quad chassis with an Atlas upper torso on a 360 degree torso twist.....*shudders*