I saw the Jesters quirks and I really hope that's not all it's getting because it's completely lacking. The Cat's, esp the Jester and K2, need armor buffs like many other smaller targets are getting but all I see atm is a small buff to LL's. Definitely not fitting for a T4 mech listed as T3. If it's left as is I suppose it will just be another lesson on not bothering to buy hero mechs.
If they were to restore the torso twist to the catapults, and perhaps put the Jester in line with the standard K2 with a torso twist of 140 degrees, that would be more than sufficient. It's really not a bonus quirk, it's just an elimination of the old nerf.
If they were to restore the torso twist to the catapults, and perhaps put the Jester in line with the standard K2 with a torso twist of 140 degrees, that would be more than sufficient. It's really not a bonus quirk, it's just an elimination of the old nerf.
The torso twist might help spread some of the damage but it would still be too easily cored. As it is now the nose is so big you can't even twist far enough to ensure it won't be hit. Of course I never got to play with the Jesters old twist abilities. Would probably make them a lot more fun.
Cat changes were not done as quirks for the most part, they were changed to the chassis...
The K2 and Jester are the only ones with quirks currently...
(The Victor changes were done with quirks it looks like)
The catapult used to be a beast because of LRM, gauss, AC20 balance ... It always had a stupid big CT but its various variants before so many more mechs were added could boat a few of the nastier weapons. So it became less mobile with a worse torso twist as a soft nerf to the chassis.
Now however that looks quaint.
Personally I think making its CT more like the madcat or stalker would be better, but making it torso twist well to improve targetting fast movers and being able to kite better would certainly help because the chassis doesnt have that much else going for it in this world of HSR and completely different weapons balance.
Asmudius Heng, on 17 October 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:
The catapult used to be a beast because of LRM, gauss, AC20 balance ... It always had a stupid big CT but its various variants before so many more mechs were added could boat a few of the nastier weapons. So it became less mobile with a worse torso twist as a soft nerf to the chassis.
Now however that looks quaint.
Personally I think making its CT more like the madcat or stalker would be better, but making it torso twist well to improve targetting fast movers and being able to kite better would certainly help because the chassis doesnt have that much else going for it in this world of HSR and completely different weapons balance.
I'm not exactly a fan of that... but just understand that this particular change invalidates or at least minimizes the role of the XL engine on the Catapult.
I've never failed to shoot the side of a Catapult to test XL-ness (well, depending on the loadout). So... /shrug
I'm not exactly a fan of that... but just understand that this particular change invalidates or at least minimizes the role of the XL engine on the Catapult.
I've never failed to shoot the side of a Catapult to test XL-ness (well, depending on the loadout). So... /shrug
PGI has the data to see where the deaths come from most but a slight reduction in CT is not to stop people from killing it through particular locations, but it does make spreading the damage around easier for the pilot.
I run XL all he time and the CT is nearly always the bit that suffers. Also since running LRMs requires you to face the enemy for long periods of time if you are doing direct fire you tend to have a harder time shielding with torso anyway.
I small reduction in CT size would just help some of those shots bounce to side torsos extending the life marginally but critically longer i am certain.
The twist would be nice to come back to for kiting purposes ... In generally its a bit of a slug with the JJ changes too and its fragility. But that's just my opinion anyway
I don't think the catapults need a change to hit boxes. Back in the day it was just find to be able to torso twist the damage across the mech. Even with the big nose, you could spin around and spread damage just fine. Piloting skill and the ability to run full tilt forwards while shooting nearly behind was what made the mech a great ride.
And I very much vote NOT to change the shape. It doesn't need to look anymore like a MadCat. It's beautiful just as it is.
Return the torso twist and give it whatever other quirks it deserves for it's tier. It'll be a great mech.
I could just say "For Balance, Corerule ignore", but it wouldn't be a proper response... let alone give proper justice to the issue.
I think that in many of the previous MW games where torso twist was limited (Nova being the primary example), they didn't get much of a fair shake in terms of being able to survive in a video game. It's hard to properly appreciate them in the original context of the mech... then again, there were some MW games that allowed of 360 torso-twist (MW3 didn't quite have it 360, but close enough, MW4 had it for the notable ones).
You can only hold true to some of the values... but it can only work to a certain extent. Unless you can find ways to make it "lore friendly", some stuff has to be made friendly to a video game.
That dude's bad English has become a meme...
Indeed. This is one of the first games to introduce something that could completely alleviate the issue of not having torso twist, but its implementation is a bit too shallow. Then again even in the games that held true (MW2 for example) a minor twist was granted, but the mechs who actually can't twist typically had something that could compensate for it.
Allow me to list some examples.
Spoiler
Lets begin with a Nova as it is the easiest example.
A Black Hawk as the Inner Sphere calls it, has no torso twist because in the proper form it has no pelvis. The legs are attached to the shoulders, even though both can pivot independently.
This also means (and demonstrated heavily in the epic and on-going [posting-wise] Phoenix package versus Clan wave 1 fight in the King Crab versus Dire Wolf and other TT battles thread linked here) losing a side torso means losing both the arm and the leg! Quite the tragic thing to overcome! But in a well-designed setup very easy to make happen without being excessively easy for enemies to deliberately do it.
The Nova features almost entirely arm-mounted weaponry and a cockpit with a full 180+ degree view. Without lower arm actuators, it can flip the arms to shoot behind itself. With lower arm actuators, it is able to shoot within the entire range of its view.
When no lower arm actuators are present, it maintains this appearance. (The fan model has the legs a bit thin and/or the torso a bit thick.)
You may instantly notice this mech's greatest advantage is size; it is one of the vertically smallest 50 ton mechs in existence. This is because it's a Clan mech without a pelvis, Endo (makes the mech bigger) or Ferro (which also makes the mech bulkier). These are the advantages of NOT having those weight saving measures; being smaller. (8.3 meters tall, when a Commando and a Hunchback are both 9 meters tall; a Commando being very thin and a Hunchback being quite bulky, though with the true bulk of Nova's legs and torso, and if the Nova's torso pointed straight to the sky it would be slightly taller than the Hunchback).
Spoiler
The lore of endo and ferro is that they take up space both inside and out, inflating the size of the mech while reducing the 'slots' it can hold things in. The prices for repairing those materials are extremely manageable even on a strained budget, the real reasons for not having them on all mechs is essentially the mech's resultant size. This is why mechs with those features are bigger than mechs.
One other thing you might notice, take a look at those feet. Naturally tabletop doesn't encompass it, but the books do. It turns a lot faster than most mechs and it does so while being steadier. At higher speeds like most mechs it leans into the turns, but the rotation of the feet (something most IS mechs can't do) is a huge factor in being able to turn fast enough to make up for the lack of twist. Also depending on the art, some depictions give the Nova ball-joints for the legs, allowing it to pivot the torso about 25 degrees in either direction.
But, when it has lower arm actuators it is depicted more like this.
As you may notice, it's far more capable of flexing to aim left/right with these arms. Akin to a Crab, it can also shoot in two directions 180 degrees apart, too.
Without lower arm actuators, it shoots forward and back, with 360 degree vertical range. With lower arm actuators it shoots left, forward and right with 180 degree horizontal range. It may not be able to twist and shoot behind itself with those actuators, but you can easily make up for that by having one arm of each design.
It's a far cry from helpless.
----
The Locust is another prime example. Many of the faster-paced lights (and mediums) have no torso twist to simplify piloting them, as truth be told those high speeds at the correct scale will seem much faster. After all, consider that a Locust is only 8 meters tall due to really long legs.
TRO
You will also notice that in every single depiction of a Locust, the arms are indeed flexible to a limited degree to the left and right, despite no lower arm actuators. A lower arm actuator is meant to represent a fully functioning elbow with bicep-pivotability. This isn't entirely necessary to twist one's arms, as the shoulder covers pivoting up and down, and the upper arm actuator normally covers either the presence of a partially functioning elbow or the ability to pivot beyond the shoulder.
It also has a turret, which would have far more range than its arm-mounted weaponry (but the arms could shoot behind, the turret would catch on the legs if it pivoted too far).
In this case instead of the body pivoting, the legs would pivot just above the knees and at the feet to assist with turning. Also the turret would track for extreme twisting needs that the body cannot do.
-----
The Catapult.
This mech is built to lob missiles. That's about it. The targeting system can lock missiles to whereever the pilot looks. (Consider this: MWO's arm-aiming system, but without restrictions; it can aim wherever you do and while the arms won't aim that way, the missiles can lock that way).
The Catapult is actually supposed to be 11.6 meters tall. (It's important to note MWO's Hunchback is 13.5 meters tall and MWO's Centurion is 14.7 meters tall; meanwhile Battletech's Hunchback is just barely over 9 meters tall and I don't know the height of Battletech's Centurion, but it is frequently depicted as taller and skinnier than the squat-sized Hunchback. MWO's Catapult is 2.3 meters taller than the actual Battletech description).
(Edit: This picture was causing something that was preventing it from being posted due to commas in the name, had to save, upload to my own hosting thingy, etc. Readded.)
The models aren't always known for scale, but that's a Trebuchet next to a Catapult.
Admittedly there is no helping the lasers with the official art or most unofficial art. This of course would help enforce the Catapult into role warfare as a long range missile mech.
But this leads us to something else...
MWO's energy weapon art for the Catapult gives us an opportunity.
Note the way they look like they could retract and close, giving additional protection? That was one of my first thoughts.
But then I saw this.
Take note of 1:02, when the turrets flex out.
The Catapult would be able to fight threats off to its side, but wouldn't be able bring all of its energy weapons to bare; just one and maybe the MG / AC on the K2, leaving it vulnerable enough to value escorts and long range combat. No twin AC/20 brawling nonsense from a long range support mech. It wouldn't be able to twist off damage, discouraging but not disabling the ability to bring SRMs. Naturally, SRMs are guided in Battletech and no different than Streaks except Streaks have a smarter computer that says "Nope, you can't fire" if you don't have a target or it doesn't believe you can hit the target. (Unlike SRMs which can fire without a target). So even the SRMs won't be hindered by the lack of a torso twist except when firing without a target lock.
Admittedly, the Catapult official designs do not allow it the ability to rapidly turn...but this only further emphasizes its role warfare position for long range.
---------
There's three down. All three capable of engaging enemies to the left or right without having to turn or twist.
Out of 90 mechs in the TRO 3025, 14 don't have twist. 6 are questionable. But in most every case, there's something of an edge that the mech has to make up for it.
Much like real world tanks that don't have turrets. They have traits that warrant the design as not only functionally viable but versatile too.
On a side note, Deathlike, which do you like better? Someone is being awesome enough to make an emblem for Zhizhu. Note that Zhizhu has two meanings. Supporting Pillar, and spider. The skull was something liberal, but after getting black lines to match my Founder's Atlas skull (which happened to be the same color; Tumeric), I quickly fell in love with it.
Spoiler
Spoilered to prevent the scroll it would cause for those not interested.
I just want the torso twist range and narrow 15 missile launchers back on the C1
Koniving, on 18 October 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:
That dude's bad English has become a meme...
Indeed. This is one of the first games to introduce something that could completely alleviate the issue of not having torso twist, but its implementation is a bit too shallow. Then again even in the games that held true (MW2 for example) a minor twist was granted, but the mechs who actually can't twist typically had something that could compensate for it.
That's a huge amount of work for very minor change which more than half of the people would hate.
I just want the torso twist range and narrow 15 missile launchers back on the C1
That's a huge amount of work for very minor change which more than half of the people would hate.
The concept of eliminating torso twist is also, quite frankly, silly... and losing legs when losing torsos or arms is even worse.
Nobody in their right mind would build a walking tank (in a world where such things made sense) and not give it the ability to torso-twist the upper half of the mech. Yeah, yeah, I know - walking tanks are already "absurd," but mechs without torso twist pushes that into a point of simple silliness, IMHO. It's just not practical.
Don't believe me? Give this a shot - get a few Nerf guns together with your friends, and walk around shooting at each other... but one of you gets to be the mech with no torso twist; that's right, don't twist your body - or head - at all. Keep them locked facing forwards at all times. You'll get creamed by your opponents who actually move in a logical fashion for the situation.
Point being that much of the old artwork, despite its sacred "Lore" status, didn't make much sense, and mechs lacking torso twist falls squarely into that category. Such mechs would instantly be Tier 5, nobody would play them, and anybody who had such a mech that lost its torso twist would be properly enraged.
Edited by oldradagast, 18 October 2014 - 07:12 AM.
I just want the torso twist range and narrow 15 missile launchers back on the C1
That's a huge amount of work for very minor change which more than half of the people would hate.
The idea is under the assumption of being done for the next Mechwarrior game or more preferably a Battletech game.
I've been futzing with how to design a proper yet fair Battletech game in real time to be the Battletech game the BT fans wanted, as simply "Mechwarrior" will never truly give a BT experience.
It would also fit in nicely with quad-leg mechs, who also don't have torso twist but they do have turrets and lateral (sideways) movement.
You're under the assumption that the pilot's head can't twist, or that it can't shoot left or right. Quite far from it. In fact you may notice that many of the mechs would have fields of fire that are not possible on MWO. For example the MWO Catapult must twist and face a target head on to fire missiles at it. This is not true for Battletech even though the mech can't twist, you can be 90 degrees off to the left and so long as you're far enough away for the missiles to make the turn, the Catapult can still hit you.
Take this immobile tank. Track is busted. Turret only has twin AC/10s. But the body has 4 LRM-5s.
The Atlas is targeted by the turret.
The four enforcers are targeted by the LRM-5s. Of the 4, 3 are hit (the North / Top-most target was missed, though it was possible [I missed the roll by 1 point]).
That would be the same effectiveness of a Catapult with LRMs or SRMs, even if it could not twist (or in this case even move), it could still attack anything within the pilot's view to a 180 degree arc left and right, provided the missiles can make those turns within the limits of physics. So, in a sense the mech would be significantly more effective, with a 180 degree field of fire forward, as well as be able to flip the arms to fire behind itself for an additional 120 degree field of fire, giving it a total of 300 degrees with 2 blind spots.
The current MWO Catapult has 120 degree field of fire, with the K2 having 110 degrees, and the Jester having 90.
So a Battletech Catapult with no twist with a 300 degree field of fire... or an MWO Catapult with twist that has a top range of 120 degrees? What makes more sense on a battlefield?
A more practical example is to play War Thunder. Try tanks that have turrets. Then try tanks that don't.
Then try tanks with multiple turrets.
Try fast tanks.
Try slow tanks.
Try ones with big guns.
Try ones with tiny guns.
You'll start to get a feel that everything has its place.
(On the edits: Had trouble getting the image to work, had to reupload. What is it with the forum not taking images with spaces now? Also added in more 'MWO' and 'Battletech' distinction to be as clear as possible.)
Sorry Koniving, but I have to agree the the gentleman who said having mechs with no torso twist is a terribad design and would quickly go the way of the dodo.
Maybe it would work in a tabletop game, but it definitely would not work in a first mech shooter.
The MWO catapult design is the bomb, and if they give it back the torso twist it started with, then it'll become a first class mech again. Maybe not tier 1, but at least better than tier 5. And giving the twist back should be easy enough since it was initially designed to have it.
Koniving, the first spider pic is better. The second one seems to have too much "space" that goes unused. Perhaps if someone has the artistic vision to integrate the spider in the "middle" of the pillar in some creative fashion, it could work.
Also, I enjoyed "the dancing Locust".
Back to the original discussion... in the case of the Nova, I guess it is "possible" to adhere to some of the old TT-like behavior, but that would involve a redesign of the mech (it would probably never happen) and a massive quirk for turning speed, accel, decel, and more stuff. It "could work", but would be very inconsistent to what we have at the moment. I don't think MW2 nor MW3 (not sure if it was added in Mektek's modification of MW4) had increased turning speed as compensation, because that would be the only way to spread damage effectively during cooldown.
I don't think the catapults need a change to hit boxes. Back in the day it was just find to be able to torso twist the damage across the mech. Even with the big nose, you could spin around and spread damage just fine. Piloting skill and the ability to run full tilt forwards while shooting nearly behind was what made the mech a great ride.
And I very much vote NOT to change the shape. It doesn't need to look anymore like a MadCat. It's beautiful just as it is.
Return the torso twist and give it whatever other quirks it deserves for it's tier. It'll be a great mech.
Changing the hit boxes does not mean changing the shape if that was not clear. The model would not change, but what location was hit would change. The invisible hit boxes for each location would simply change shape around the geometry of the mech so the CT hitbox would be slightly more narrow.
While you can say you were great at spreading damage, I have no trouble hitting catapult CTs at all so we have two very anecdotal experiences at odds there. PGI has the data, if it is dying through the CT much more than other mechs before side torso loss I would say its a prime candidate for a CT hitbox reduction.
Not too much though, a few percent would cause just a few shots to go wide which would not stop it from being viable for XL engines either, if you were going for side torsos it would be just fine too, at least it can turn and hide torsos decently due to the jutting nose.
Making the torso twisting better would also help ... Unless you are some dirty BT purist like Kon
I guess the point is that quirks should not just be about weapons and armour ... Though I m guessing that PGI might just add armour to the CT to be lazy about it.
Asmudius Heng, on 18 October 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:
Changing the hit boxes does not mean changing the shape if that was not clear. The model would not change, but what location was hit would change. The invisible hit boxes for each location would simply change shape around the geometry of the mech so the CT hitbox would be slightly more narrow.
While you can say you were great at spreading damage, I have no trouble hitting catapult CTs at all so we have two very anecdotal experiences at odds there. PGI has the data, if it is dying through the CT much more than other mechs before side torso loss I would say its a prime candidate for a CT hitbox reduction.
I like the hit boxes the way they are because it helps for running an XL engine if the right and left torso's are small.
I like the hit boxes the way they are because it helps for running an XL engine if the right and left torso's are small.
Except the LT and RT are not really that small, you can HIDE a torso fairly well because you can swing your whole bosy away from the enemy, but that just exposes your other torso so in an XL you cannot hide your torsos well due to high arms.
Also, even when you swing your whole body around you can hit the CT very easily.
What this means is that people gunning for your side torso will generally get it, but people guning for your CT will ALWAYS get it.
If the CT was a little smaller people might find it harder to hit the CT from a side angle and go for the side torso instead ... this is not a BAD thing because you can take some damage then swing your body around and expose your fresh other side torso while hiding the other.
This would also help running a Standard and XL engine because in a standard rather than moving your torso around to stop it being destroyed, you can actually lose the entire side torso and use it as a shield.
The MASSIVE CT is a bad thing for all builds because its extremely hard to use positioning of your mech well because people just pop your CT so easily.
i am not wanting a full on stalker profile mind you - just a few percentages mean that the CT will be hittable from most angles still but a few shots are going to stray either side. Also if you are using LRMs and are forced to face the enemy for the flight duration then having a few laser ticks, or a travel time weapon missing the CT because its not so huge would add more to your lifespan on the battlefield.
As i mentioned, they may just give an internal/armour boost to the CT to avoid changing any hit boxes, but that does not add any skill element of shileding better so its not as good a fix IMO.
4
Sorbic, on 17 October 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:
