134 replies to this topic

[Cybercrime]

Dracol, on 13 October 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

Let me then clarify, a land based war machine.

Dracol, on 13 October 2014 - 06:53 AM, said:

[/size]


Notice how there are no windows and the crew are surrounded by armor?

So once again: Since you want to see those types of unrealistic mechs in the game, then the unrealistic nature of humanoid mechs are also fair game.

Tanks is a outdated type of war vehicle.

[Scratx]

ODONATA, on 13 October 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

Tanks is a outdated type of war vehicle.

Really? Here, let me : http://www.sarna.net...Combat_Vehicles

[stjobe]

ODONATA, on 13 October 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

Tanks is a outdated type of war vehicle.

Hahaha.

No, let me rephrase that:

HAHAHAHAHA.

Edit: Oh, and do you really believe the Cougar and the Abrams have similar mission profiles or capabilities? If so, let me just HAHAHAHHAHAAHA

Edit 2: Oh, and as for the OP: BattleTech, learn about it.

Edited by stjobe, 13 October 2014 - 07:06 AM.

[Dracol]

ODONATA, on 13 October 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

Tanks is a outdated type of war vehicle.

The mech you proposed has a huge, glass encased cockpit, which is highly unrealistic for a ground based war machine. The MRAP Cougar you used as a counter example to the Abrams still has a fraction of the window space of the beloved mech you used as an example of what a "real" mech should look like.

And the only counter argument you have left is "Tanks (are) (an) outdated type of war vehicle"???

....hate to break it to you, but for the longest time in BTech fandom is the discussion that in real life, mechs would never be made in the first place.

There has to be a suspension of disbelief in the first place to have mechs. Since we're suspending reality in order to even have the very basic concept of the game, might as well throw in humanoid shaped mechs.

[STEF_]

Sirius Drake, on 13 October 2014 - 03:11 AM, said:

.... I am out of here.

Hey, have you finished all the pop-corns?
too bad...

I'm out of here too....

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 13 October 2014 - 07:18 AM.

[STEF_]

ODONATA, on 13 October 2014 - 02:31 AM, said:

Are you study physics in school or just study BATTLETECH comics?
I repeat once more:
No one sober engineer from Earth planet never create something like Centurion,
Hunchback, Trebuchet, Atlas, Firestarter or Summoner.
But on the other hand: Raven, Timber Wolf, Catapult, Cicada is OK.
Especially Raven torso.

lil tip for you.
Just wait for ... let's say 1 year, then back to read what you are writing.
I'm just curious to know if you'll feel ridiculous or understand that you are simply trolling... or , who knows, maybe you'll just be playing another videogame.
and not this one, RELATED BATTLETECH GAME.

bye bye

[Cybercrime]

stjobe, on 13 October 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

Oh, and do you really believe the Cougar and the Abrams have similar mission profiles or capabilities? If so, let me just HAHAHAHHAHAAHA

Where I said it?

I can repeat once more: the era of tanks is ended.
Tank price is millions $. Anti-tank missle price is thousands $.

[Ghogiel]

Let's just stop for a sec and grasp the situation,

OP is arguing for more realistic giant robits in a fps video game loosely based on a 1980s table top miniature game.

A nova is just going to falcon punch that stubby armed noob mech the OP posted a pic of. That's how realism works in battletech.

[Jonny Slam]

Sorry OP but for me the extension of the Battletech universe is what brought me here. If the Devs start dropping non-cannon mechs (pun intended) before using all the existing mechs in the the game-universe I will probably call it quits. If I wanted generic non-battletech machines I could just play Hawken or some other generic game.

[Scratx]

ODONATA, on 13 October 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Where I said it?

I can repeat once more: the era of tanks is ended.
Tank price is millions $. Anti-tank missle price is thousands $.

This argument works doubly against battlemechs. Same tech level, tank vs mech? Mech is worse 'cept in select few circumstances. Tanks can make far more effective use of their weight for armor, to begin with. BT mechs only work because they have high-tech BS armor that lets entire panels absorb the pinpoint damage taken, thus making the actual thickness of the armor mostly a moot point.

When you have that kind of BS armor, yeah, one of the main natural advantages a tank has goes away.

[Dracol]

ODONATA, on 13 October 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

-snip-

There has to be a suspension of disbelief in the first place to have mechs. Since we're suspending reality in order to even have the very basic concept of the game, might as well throw in humanoid shaped mechs.

....still no counter argument, eh???

Edited by Dracol, 13 October 2014 - 08:13 AM.

[Dock Steward]

What would be the point of having permission to use the rights, if you didn't...use them?

[The Basilisk]

ODONATA, on 13 October 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:

OK. If they develop any kind of new mech and add it to sarna.net wiki it automatically becomes BATTLETECH mech.
Also if I buy a mechwarrior franchise I can make battlemech from your hoover.

No...Sarna is not Battletech but a private wiki.

[Cybercrime]

Dracol, on 13 October 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

[/size]
There has to be a suspension of disbelief in the first place to have mechs. Since we're suspending reality in order to even have the very basic concept of the game, might as well throw in humanoid shaped mechs.

....still no counter argument, eh???

Anyway I think that "humanoid shaped" isn't cool. It's only my opinion and no one agreed with me in this thread.
Also I think that it's better to invent new mech than trying to adapt butt like that:


in MWO.

Let's look at clan mechs!
Timber -- is ok but hands is too low.
Warhank -- is ok but not enough hardpoints/weapons.
Dire -- is ok but viewing angle is not enough.

I'm sure that it's better to develop new mech without obvious negative features.

Edited by ODONATA, 13 October 2014 - 08:35 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

ODONATA, on 13 October 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Anyway I think that "humanoid shaped" isn't cool. It's only my opinion and no one agreed with me in this thread.
Also I think that it's better invent new mech than trying to adapt butt like that:


in MWO.

Let's look at clan mechs!
Timber -- is ok but hands is too low.
Warhank -- is ok but not enough hardpoints/weapons.
Dire -- is ok but viewing angle is not enough.

I'm sure that it's better to develop new mech without obvious negative features.

lol what.

Have you seen what current in-game mechs actually look like in the source material? Here's the atlas.



Note the super awesome leg.

MWO robots have only a superficial resemblance to the ancient designs from the late bronze age. Anything they add, no matter how ugly it used to be, gets the FD treatment. Guy's a genius. He could probably save this robot.

[stjobe]

ODONATA, on 13 October 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

I'm sure that it's better to develop new mech without obvious negative features.

BattleTech is coming up on its 30th birthday.
There's over 500 fully canon 'mechs available for implementation.
39 of those are currently in MWO.

Until we have all of the canon 'mechs, we don't need non-canon 'mechs.

[Dock Steward]

ODONATA, on 12 October 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

I feel like these are actually really similar...at least in basic design...

Edited by Dock Steward, 13 October 2014 - 08:38 AM.

[Escef]

How is this NOT in K-Town by now?

[Logan Hawke]

Escef, on 13 October 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

How is this NOT in K-Town by now?

Because it's hilarious?

[Mirkk Defwode]

ODONATA, on 13 October 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Anyway I think that "humanoid shaped" isn't cool. It's only my opinion and no one agreed with me in this thread.
Also I think that it's better to invent new mech than trying to adapt butt like that:


in MWO.

Let's look at clan mechs!
Timber -- is ok but hands is too low.
Warhank -- is ok but not enough hardpoints/weapons.
Dire -- is ok but viewing angle is not enough.

I'm sure that it's better to develop new mech without obvious negative features.

Two Things...

1) Mechwarrior franchise is Leased by PGI now not Owned. The Owner remains Microsoft from their acquisition of FASA back in the late 90's. Having Leased Intellectual Property may not permit them to add wholly new content depending on how the licensing agreement was done.

2) Battletech as a Intellectual Property is run by Catalyst Labs which is owned by Topps. Sarna.net is a fan run database featuring Battletech and Mechwarrior franchises. Adding new content there without some support from based in the fiction of officially recognized Novels, Tech manuals, or Games does not make it an official item, it will be vetted by the moderators and removed without evidence of it's validity in the universe. Acceptance on this wiki does not make it canonical material as well, it simply makes it recognized by a section of the fanbase.