20517 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 03 October 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

Nice text about the quads... still, too much trouble for them.

sad, but true. WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE A SPECIAL STRETCH GOAL, just for the quad animations, and then, especially for a 3025 era game like Battletech, just not enough mechs to use it on. Even endgame era MWO would have only a handful.

It would be nice, but what is economically viable to draw in aTT game, and as a resource in a video game, not the same.

[Juodas Varnas]

Guys, even I know that the chances of getting the Quads even in a TT-ish BATTLETECH are basically 0.
There's probably not even enough fans that even want them, unlike with mechs like the Hatchetman or the Marauder or another one of the super-iconic fan-favorites.

I mean, the Scorpion is my favorite BT mech, but i'm not stupid-I KNOW it's not going to make an appearance. There's a higher chance we'll get LAMs... (since we'll have combined warfare and mechs, having something that's a little bit of both is probably easier to implement than something that's almost neither of them)

[Lightfoot]

The Woodsman

Old in 3050, but still around. Heavy omnimech, 2865, progenitor for the Timber Wolf and others. In 3050 it is likely to have been in use in the Dark Caste (aka Bandit Caste), the unacknowledged Clan of outlaws, bandits, and clan outcasts that remained unsanctioned, but used by the Clan societies as a place to hide their failures more or less. Not much else is known about the Dark Caste, but it's certainly got a lot of roleplay value to utilize. They would be using the Woodsman in 3050.

The Woodsman prime has only one known variant, but Sarna explains this is just the most popular of the Woodsman variants so there were others and they could be logically deduced to create a few likely apocryphal variants.

[bad arcade kitty]

i still don't get why quads need a lot of additional work

every mech model in the game has at least partially unique walking animation, they can make a 4 legged model and animate it probably wasting not much more effort than for animating a bipedal mech

do you think when somebody animates a centipede model they need 50 times more work than when they animate a bipedal model or what?

then, they can make quads torso twist just like existing mechs adding waist to the models like they did to nova

and... that's all. i cannot see any additional whole lot of work there

[Odanan]

Lightfoot, on 03 October 2015 - 02:28 PM, said:

The Woodsman

Old in 3050, but still around. Heavy omnimech, 2865, progenitor for the Timber Wolf and others. In 3050 it is likely to have been in use in the Dark Caste (aka Bandit Caste), the unacknowledged Clan of outlaws, bandits, and clan outcasts that remained unsanctioned, but used by the Clan societies as a place to hide their failures more or less. Not much else is known about the Dark Caste, but it's certainly got a lot of roleplay value to utilize. They would be using the Woodsman in 3050.

The Woodsman prime has only one known variant, but Sarna explains this is just the most popular of the Woodsman variants so there were others and they could be logically deduced to create a few likely apocryphal variants.

Two words: Standard Engine.

[Odanan]

bad arcade kitty, on 03 October 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

i still don't get why quads need a lot of additional work

every mech model in the game has at least partially unique walking animation, they can make a 4 legged model and animate it probably wasting not much more effort than for animating a bipedal mech

do you think when somebody animates a centipede model they need 50 times more work than when they animate a bipedal model or what?

then, they can make quads torso twist just like existing mechs adding waist to the models like they did to nova

and... that's all. i cannot see any additional whole lot of work there

Not only the animation.

Quads have very different critical slots (12 less criticals), don't have arms, but 4 legs, can't torso twist (?), can walk sideways, won't die with 2, even 3 legs destroyed, etc.
They are completely different vehicles!
It should be easier to add pilotable tanks in the game than quad mechs.

[Ovion]

bad arcade kitty, on 03 October 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

i still don't get why quads need a lot of additional work

every mech model in the game has at least partially unique walking animation, they can make a 4 legged model and animate it probably wasting not much more effort than for animating a bipedal mech

do you think when somebody animates a centipede model they need 50 times more work than when they animate a bipedal model or what?

then, they can make quads torso twist just like existing mechs adding waist to the models like they did to nova

and... that's all. i cannot see any additional whole lot of work there

Every existing mech follows a standard bipedal motion.
The only variation is standard, or reverse knee.
This means most can use similar skeletons and modification of the same animations.

Quads also don't move, turn or behave the same.

So first, they need fresh code, fresh model skeletons and animation templates.
This also needs to work across the 4 legs, when they already have issues with getting 2 to sit right.
Then, they don't have arms, but turrets, which will require different placement and code.

And if you didn't realise, the code of MWO is a bit of a mess, with different coders and bits floating around.
There's also limitations of the Crytech engine.
There's reasons we don't have rear facing weapons, leg mounted weapons, rear-view mirrors and such.

It took them a LOT of work to implement Clan tech, Omnipods, etc, and needed to rebuild large parts for the UI to get it and other things working.

Quads will need special UI and system elements, at least as much work as a Clans will be involved, on a far more niche technology, with a max potential return equivalent to that of 1-2 packages right now.

[Lightfoot]

Odanan, on 03 October 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

Two words: Standard Engine.

"The light Endo Steel chassis allowed the Woodsman to devote 27 tons to pod space, allowing many mission specific loadouts and prototype weapon configurations."

27 tons, that's what the Mad Cat carries. Pod mounted jump jets rather than fixed=32 tons? A little slow, but has MASC and is different. I want one.

[Strum Wealh]

I would imagine that if PGI were to implement the Rifleman (which has a good chance of happening, now that we have the MAD & the WHM), they would chose among the RFL-3N, RFL-4D, RFL-3C, RFL-5M, and RFL-5D.

The RFL-1N & RFL-2N are non-standard tonnages (50 tons each) compared to the "standard" RFL-3N.
The Rifleman C is a mixtech variant, and probably isn't going to happen, given PGI's stance on "no mixtech".
Everything else is out-of-timeline until the early 3060s.

The inclusion of the 3N is a given, as it is the "standard" model.
The 4D and the 5D are both all-energy models. The 4D is the 3025-tech variant while the 5D is the 3050-tech variant; the latter upgrades to ER-PPCs & an XL Engine, and places two MLas in the CT (the only one of the timeline-appropriate variants to have CT-mounted weapons).
The 3C loses the arm-mounted energy hardpoints, and upgrades the ACs to AC/10s.
The 5M is a straight upgrade to the 3N, with identical base stats and minimum hardpoint locations.

I could see PGI using the 3N (as a balanced energy/ballistics variant), the 3C (as a ballistics-heavy variant), and the 5D (as an all-energy variant, and the only variant to have centerline weapons).

• Proposed RFL-3N hardpoints
  
  • LA: 2 energy, 1 ballistic
    
  • LT: 1 energy
    
  • RT: 1 energy
    
  • RA: 1 energy, 2 ballistic
• Proposed RFL-3C hardpoints
  
  • LA: 3 ballistic
    
  • LT: 1 energy
    
  • RT: 1 energy
    
  • RA: 3 ballistic
• Proposed RFL-5D hardpoints
  
  • LA: 2 energy
    
  • LT: 2 energy
    
  • RT: 2 energy
    
  • RA: 2 energy

A Hero Rifleman could be made in tribute of the "Bannockburn", the personal BattleMech of Davis McCall of the Grey Death Legion, with PGI exercising their creative license to create a unique loadout.

• Proposed RFL-DM "Bannockburn" hardpoints/loadout
  
  • LA: 1 energy, 1 ballistic (LLas, AC/2)
    
  • LT: 1 missile (SRM-4)
    
  • CT: 2 energy (x2 MLas)
    
  • RT: 1 missile (SRM-4)
    
  • RA: 1 energy, 1 ballistic (LLas, AC/2)

Thoughts?

[zagibu]

bad arcade kitty, on 03 October 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

i still don't get why quads need a lot of additional work

every mech model in the game has at least partially unique walking animation, they can make a 4 legged model and animate it probably wasting not much more effort than for animating a bipedal mech

do you think when somebody animates a centipede model they need 50 times more work than when they animate a bipedal model or what?

then, they can make quads torso twist just like existing mechs adding waist to the models like they did to nova

and... that's all. i cannot see any additional whole lot of work there

Multi leg walkers are a ***** to implement, because of collision with terrain. Imagine a quad in Canyon Network, what would happen when it walks off a cliff? It's really hard to make it look good and still keep it playable. Inverse kinematics are a must.

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 04 October 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

• Proposed RFL-3N hardpoints
  
  • LA: 2 energy, 1 ballistic
    
  • LT: 1 energy
    
  • RT: 1 energy
    
  • RA: 1 energy, 2 ballistic

Why not 1 energy and 2 ballistic in each arm?

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 04 October 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

[/list][/list]Why not 1 energy and 2 ballistic in each arm?

why not a more interesting mech to begin with?

Bishop Steiner, on 04 October 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

that I would much rather see this:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Phoenix_Hawk

Gimme a:
PXH-1
97 kph, 6 JJ, 1 Large Laser(RA), 2 Medium Lasers (RA/LA), 2 MG (RA/LA)
Proposed Hardpoints:
-RA: 2 Energy, 2 Ballistics
-LA: 1 Energy, 2 Ballistics


PXH-1b "Special"
97 kph, 6 JJ, 1 ERPPC (RA), 1 ER Large Laser (RT) 2 Medium Lasers (RA/LA), 2 MG (RA/LA) 1 Guardian ECM (CT)
Proposed Hardpoints:
-RA: 2 Energy, 1 Ballistics
-LA: 1 Energy, 1 Ballistics
-RT: 1 Energy
-LT: ECM (moved for MWO rules)

and PXH-3S
97 kph, 6 JJ, 1 Large Pulse Laser(RA), 2 Medium Lasers (RA/LA), 2 MG (LA), AMS (RA), MASC (CT)
Proposed Hardpoints:
-RA: 3 Energy, 1 AMS
-LA: 2 Energy, 2 Ballistics

And the Hero could be Paul Master's ride.
PXH-3M Masters
97 kph, 6 JJ, 1 ER Large Laser(RA), 2 Medium Pulse Lasers (RA/LA), 1 MG (LA), 2 SRM4 (LA, thanks strum) 1 AMS (RA)
Proposed Hardpoints:
-RA: 2 Energy,
-LA: 1 Energy, 1 Ballistics, 2 Missile


Just my 2 ct

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 04 October 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

Why not 1 energy and 2 ballistic in each arm?

It reduces the level of redundancy with the proposed RFL-3C (which, in turn, is aping the JM6-DD hardpoint arrangement), which covers the "quad-AC/2"/"quad-AC/5" capability.
Also, IMO, the asymmetry adds a bit more flavor to build variation, as it imparts degrees of handedness (the exact degree being dependent on the build goal) to an otherwise completely symmetrical 'Mech.

(Additionally, there may or may not have also been just a little bit of "lightly troll the 'YOU MUST USE ALL OF THE HARDPOINTS AT ALL COSTS'" types... )

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 04 October 2015 - 05:01 PM, said:

It reduces the level of redundancy with the proposed RFL-3C (which, in turn, is aping the JM6-DD hardpoint arrangement), which covers the "quad-AC/2"/"quad-AC/5" capability.
Also, IMO, the asymmetry adds a bit more flavor to build variation, as it imparts degrees of handedness (the exact degree being dependent on the build goal) to an otherwise completely symmetrical 'Mech.

(Additionally, there may or may not have also been just a little bit of "lightly troll the 'YOU MUST USE ALL OF THE HARDPOINTS AT ALL COSTS'" types... )

I know, I know, but it really tickles my OCD...

(I like symmetry)

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 04 October 2015 - 05:04 PM, said:

I know, I know, but it really tickles my OCD...

(I like symmetry)

I generally prefer symmetry to asymmetry, but I can accept that there are times where asymmetry works & times where it doesn't.

Interestingly, the ON1s are an exercise in both for me - I'm quite okay with the asymmetrical distribution of the weapons, but the slightly off-center cockpit just kills the whole design for me.

[xVLFBERHxT]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 October 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

why not a more interesting mech to begin with?

yeah, the ARCHER! Different looking mech (torso cockpit), lots of lore, and morgan kell phantom mech hero :-)

Edited by TrapJaw80, 04 October 2015 - 05:24 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

TrapJaw80, on 04 October 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

yeah, the ARCHER! Different looking mech (torso cockpit), lots of lore, and morgan kell phantom mech hero :-)

so a not jump capable humanoid catapult?

hmmmmmm..... maybe later.

[xVLFBERHxT]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 October 2015 - 05:26 PM, said:

so a not jump capable humanoid catapult?

hmmmmmm..... maybe later.

I agree. And that's the point for me. This is the "humanoid" heavy missile- mech and a much needed alternative to the catapult. It has torso missiles, energy in the arms, plays totally different. So next to the marauder and warhammer, why not?

Sorry for my bad english Bishop. Thx.

Edited by TrapJaw80, 04 October 2015 - 05:39 PM.

[Uncle Totty]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 October 2015 - 05:26 PM, said:

so a not jump capable humanoid catapult?

hmmmmmm..... maybe later.

More like an IS Mad dog.

[Strum Wealh]

TrapJaw80, on 04 October 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

yeah, the ARCHER! Different looking mech (torso cockpit), lots of lore, and morgan kell phantom mech hero :-)

It's also worth noting that the Archer's cockpit "is located beneath the central torso, with the torso armor belt located above the cockpit", and that this is not the same thing as a "torso cockpit".