20517 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

Odanan, on 30 January 2016 - 04:42 AM, said:

Kodiak is coming!!!
In Classic mech (standalone) pack. With hero! Hero with MASC. Concept art soon. \o/

And another IS "classic" mech after. Now this is interesting. Which mech is it?

• Bushwacker! (one of the few IS mechs there are people out there willing to buy as standalone)
  
• Phoenix Hawk? (if yes, there will be no unseen medium mech for a "Project Phoenix II")
  
• Marauder II? (too soon because we got the Marauder recently?)
  
• Flea? (finally?)
  
• Crusader? (but one more heavy unseen?)
  
• Ostroc? (OK, that's a long shot)
  
• Wasp? Stinger? Valkyrie? (because we have so many unseen lights)
  
• EDIT: Longbow? (and save the Marauder II for the Project Phoenix II top tier)

Is the Bushwacker, Marauder II, and Flea considered "classic" in the sense of the Marauder, Warhammer, Rifleman, and Archer are?

I mean, I'll take a Bushwacker an Flea (#FREETHEFLEA), Marauder II is "meh" but I could really use some Phoenix Hawk, Longbow, Crusader, Valkyrie, Stinger, Wasp, or any of the OST mechs. Those are the Classics.

[Metus regem]

I'd have to say, there is about four more IS mechs that I'd actually plunk down cas for right now...

Stinger
Wasp
Phoenix Hawk
Bushwacker, but this one needs to be close to the ground, like the Crab....

Clan wise, well these pickings are getting slim....

Coyotl
Warhammer IIC

[Odanan]

cdlord, on 30 January 2016 - 07:17 PM, said:

Is the Bushwacker, Marauder II, and Flea considered "classic" in the sense of the Marauder, Warhammer, Rifleman, and Archer are?

I mean, I'll take a Bushwacker an Flea (#FREETHEFLEA), Marauder II is "meh" but I could really use some Phoenix Hawk, Longbow, Crusader, Valkyrie, Stinger, Wasp, or any of the OST mechs. Those are the Classics.

I hope it is the Wasp or Stinger - it would make sense as "Classics".
(Phoenix Hawk is cooler, but save it for the 4 mech pack!)

[Strum Wealh]

Metus regem, on 30 January 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

Bushwacker, but this one needs to be close to the ground, like the Crab...

Actually, the Bushwacker is now currently within the timeline - the BSW-X1 entered production in 3053, and Russ Bullock has stated that they are now looking at/for 'Mechs from that year.
The second canonical variant, the BSW-X2, enters production in 3054.
The third canonical variant, the BSW-S2, enters production in 3056.

Additionally, PGI has shown, via the "Origins" IIC 'Mechs, a willingness to create multiple in-house variants for chassis that have only a single in-timeline variant available.

As such, a set consisting of the BSW-X1, "BSW-P1", "BSW-P2", maybe the BSW-X2 (if PGI opts to fudge a few months), and a Hero 'Mech attributed to Valten Ryder (the Bushwacker-piloting character from the old BattleTech cartoon) is much more plausible as a near-term option than, say, the Mad Cat Mk.II.

As far as the Bushwacker's geometry:

• Russ remarked during the 01/30/2016 Town Hall that their volumetric analysis of the 'Mech models showed that the Crab is actually too small for its tonnage, and that it could/would end up being made ~4-5% larger (which, due to the Square-Cube Law, would correspond to a ~1.3-1.6% increase in its length, width, height, limb diameter, and so on). The Bushwacker, being a heavier 'Mech (55 tons, versus the Crab's 50 tons), would be still-larger than the to-eventually-be-rescaled Crab.
  
• The Bushwacker's canonical low stature is largely due to the lack of a torso joint; the BT rulebook Strategic Operations specifically mentions this aspect of the BSW series as the exemplar of the "No Torso Twist" Design Quirk. Since PGI adds torsos to the canonically-torsoless 'Mechs (cf. Jenner, Black Hawk, Locust, etc), the MWO Bushwacker would necessarily stand taller than its canonical design would suggest.

Thoughts?

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 31 January 2016 - 06:47 AM, said:

Actually, the Bushwacker is now currently within the timeline - the BSW-X1 entered production in 3053, and Russ Bullock has stated that they are now looking at/for 'Mechs from that year.
The second canonical variant, the BSW-X2, enters production in 3054.
The third canonical variant, the BSW-S2, enters production in 3056.

Additionally, PGI has shown, via the "Origins" IIC 'Mechs, a willingness to create multiple in-house variants for chassis that have only a single in-timeline variant available.

As such, a set consisting of the BSW-X1, "BSW-P1", "BSW-P2", maybe the BSW-X2 (if PGI opts to fudge a few months), and a Hero 'Mech attributed to Valten Ryder (the Bushwacker-piloting character from the old BattleTech cartoon) is much more plausible as a near-term option than, say, the Mad Cat Mk.II.

As far as the Bushwacker's geometry:

• Russ remarked during the 01/30/2016 Town Hall that their volumetric analysis of the 'Mech models showed that the Crab is actually too small for its tonnage, and that it could/would end up being made ~4-5% larger (which, due to the Square-Cube Law, would correspond to a ~1.3-1.6% increase in its length, width, height, limb diameter, and so on). The Bushwacker, being a heavier 'Mech (55 tons, versus the Crab's 50 tons), would be still-larger than the to-eventually-be-rescaled Crab.
  
• The Bushwacker's canonical low stature is largely due to the lack of a torso joint; the BT rulebook Strategic Operations specifically mentions this aspect of the BSW series as the exemplar of the "No Torso Twist" Design Quirk. Since PGI adds torsos to the canonically-torsoless 'Mechs (cf. Jenner, Black Hawk, Locust, etc), the MWO Bushwacker would necessarily stand taller than its canonical design would suggest.

Thoughts?

that the no torso twist thing never made sense...

but then, since the official miniature was based off that cover, I never thought of it as particularly squat, either

MW3

MW4

only in that one pic inside the TRO

was it ever "waistless".

And since pretty much nothing in lore art or games have ever been based off that pic (as much as I liked Loose's work in 3025/3026 TRos, really felt he sorta sold it in on the 3058... though from what Stackpole said about FASA and getting paid.. I might not blame the guy.)

It's also funny... because at least in the TRO description, I remember it being described as long and lean, but not squat (and that the production version was helped into fruition by studying the architecture of a Mad Dog, another not squat mech)....... Whereas the Cauldron Born very much was described to be squat (and traditionally was drawn with no waist)

Wide is the death of a mech, more than tall.
Cheat up the arms like so

and it might be pretty dang tough, regardless.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 January 2016 - 07:26 AM, said:

that the no torso twist thing never made sense...

but then, since the official miniature was based off that cover, I never thought of it as particularly squat, either

MW3

MW4

only in that one pic inside the TRO

was it ever "waistless".

And since pretty much nothing in lore art or games have ever been based off that pic (as much as I liked Loose's work in 3025/3026 TRos, really felt he sorta sold it in on the 3058... though from what Stackpole said about FASA and getting paid.. I might not blame the guy.)

It's also funny... because at least in the TRO description, I remember it being described as long and lean, but not squat (and that the production version was helped into fruition by studying the architecture of a Mad Dog, another not squat mech)....... Whereas the Cauldron Born very much was described to be squat (and traditionally was drawn with no waist)

Wide is the death of a mech, more than tall.
Cheat up the arms like so

and it might be pretty dang tough, regardless.

Indeed, the TRO describes the BSW as having "a long, narrow upper torso designed to present a minimal target profile to enemy units".

Trial Under Fire by Loren Coleman, the canonical novelization of the MW3 storyline, described the BSW's proportions in greater detail:
"Standing just shy of eight meters in height the Bushwacker was shorter than the average 'Mech, and with its turret-style shoulder joints and far-spread arms was actually wider than it was tall."

And, then, there is the description of the "No Torso Twist" Design Quirk on page 198 of StratOps:
"Some 'Mech designs, like the Bushwacker, lack the flexibility to twist at the waist (or don’t possess a waist to twist). A ’Mech with this quirk cannot torso twist."
(The technically-not-canon-in-itself Faction Assignment & Rarity Tables document also points to the BSW (potentially & as-yet unofficially) having the "Narrow/Low Profile" Design Quirk (found on page 195 of StratOps; provides the unit with a +1 to-hit modifier versus ranged attacks), based on the statement from the TRO.)

So, as far as BT is concerned, the BSW is a long, wide 'Mech with a vaguely-cruciform or vaguely-psi-shaped planform when viewed from above, that is also incapable of torso-twisting.
We can see from other 'Mechs that the no-torso-twist aspect is unlikely to be carried over into MWO, and that the BSW will likely end up being significantly taller than it would otherwise be as a result.
On top of that, the BSW is also known - and iconic - for being long and wide, with the TRO line art having the arms being at (or very close to) the same level as the torso-mounted direct-fire weapons (which, in turn, are below - but close to - the canopy of the 'Mech); a MWO BSW could/would have length-related issues similar to those of the MWO Marauder & width-related issues similar to those of the MWO Cauldron Born, in a 'Mech that is lighter (and, thus, less heavily armored or armed) than both.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 31 January 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

Indeed, the TRO describes the BSW as having "a long, narrow upper torso designed to present a minimal target profile to enemy units".

Trial Under Fire by Loren Coleman, the canonical novelization of the MW3 storyline, described the BSW's proportions in greater detail:
"Standing just shy of eight meters in height the Bushwacker was shorter than the average 'Mech, and with its turret-style shoulder joints and far-spread arms was actually wider than it was tall."

And, then, there is the description of the "No Torso Twist" Design Quirk on page 198 of StratOps:
"Some 'Mech designs, like the Bushwacker, lack the flexibility to twist at the waist (or don’t possess a waist to twist). A ’Mech with this quirk cannot torso twist."
(The technically-not-canon-in-itself Faction Assignment & Rarity Tables document also points to the BSW (potentially & as-yet unofficially) having the "Narrow/Low Profile" Design Quirk (found on page 195 of StratOps; provides the unit with a +1 to-hit modifier versus ranged attacks), based on the statement from the TRO.)

So, as far as BT is concerned, the BSW is a long, wide 'Mech with a vaguely-cruciform or vaguely-psi-shaped planform when viewed from above, that is also incapable of torso-twisting.
We can see from other 'Mechs that the no-torso-twist aspect is unlikely to be carried over into MWO, and that the BSW will likely end up being significantly taller than it would otherwise be as a result.
On top of that, the BSW is also known - and iconic - for being long and wide, with the TRO line art having the arms being at (or very close to) the same level as the torso-mounted direct-fire weapons (which, in turn, are below - but close to - the canopy of the 'Mech); a MWO BSW could/would have length-related issues similar to those of the MWO Marauder & width-related issues similar to those of the MWO Cauldron Born, in a 'Mech that is lighter (and, thus, less heavily armored or armed) than both.

it also shows the usual lack of research even the keynote authors did for designs.

If the average mech was 10 meters, and at 55 tons, of course, Bushwackers would be the epitome of average...when one takes it from a tall humanoid shape like the Shadowhawk, it having a long chickenwalker profile would pretty much guarantee it about an 8 meter height anyhow...without it being freakishly wide.


I really need to take the basic design and do some mock ups. Of course, it's total width is also somewhat deceptive, and it's design gives it a LOT of dead space to shoot around. But IMO, they need to tuck those arms in and up a la the Madcat mkII or Vulture II, to make the mech more viable. And unless massively resized, that LRM rack on the torso will be XL death. Of course, that CT hump above the cockpit ain't gonna make many friends either.

It's a design that has some cool factor, but in honesty..it was a bad Robot in MW4, and without some serious quirks, I think it's going to disappoint a lot of people when it's released here.

I'd rather have a BJ Omni, personally, but we will see how it plays out.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 31 January 2016 - 09:20 AM.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 January 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

it also shows the usual lack of research even the keynote authors did for designs.

If the average mech was 10 meters, and at 55 tons, of course, Bushwackers would be the epitome of average...when one takes it from a tall humanoid shape like the Shadowhawk, it having a long chickenwalker profile would pretty much guarantee it about an 8 meter height anyhow...without it being freakishly wide.


I really need to take the basic design and do some mock ups. Of course, it's total width is also somewhat deceptive, and it's design gives it a LOT of dead space to shoot around. But IMO, they need to tuck those arms in and up a la the Madcat mkII or Vulture II, to make the mech more viable. And unless massively resized, that LRM rack on the torso will be XL death. Of course, that CT hump above the cockpit ain't gonna make many friends either.

It's a design that has some cool factor, but in honesty..it was a bad Robot in MW4, and without some serious quirks, I think it's going to disappoint a lot of people when it's released here.

I'd rather have a BJ Omni, personally, but we will see how it plays out.

I think the Bushwacker could be rather tough in MWO with a Standard Engine,as I expect it to be very Crab or Stalker like as far as hit boxes go....

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 31 January 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

I think the Bushwacker could be rather tough in MWO with a Standard Engine,as I expect it to be very Crab or Stalker like as far as hit boxes go....

probably,. but tbh, not too many Mediums are impressive with STD engines. Either too slow, or too undergunned. And it's not a laser vomit mech, so it has that "against it".

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 January 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

it also shows the usual lack of research even the keynote authors did for designs.

If the average mech was 10 meters, and at 55 tons, of course, Bushwackers would be the epitome of average...when one takes it from a tall humanoid shape like the Shadowhawk, it having a long chickenwalker profile would pretty much guarantee it about an 8 meter height anyhow...without it being freakishly wide.


I really need to take the basic design and do some mock ups. Of course, it's total width is also somewhat deceptive, and it's design gives it a LOT of dead space to shoot around. But IMO, they need to tuck those arms in and up a la the Madcat mkII or Vulture II, to make the mech more viable. And unless massively resized, that LRM rack on the torso will be XL death. Of course, that CT hump above the cockpit ain't gonna make many friends either.

It's a design that has some cool factor, but in honesty..it was a bad Robot in MW4, and without some serious quirks, I think it's going to disappoint a lot of people when it's released here.

I'd rather have a BJ Omni, personally, but we will see how it plays out.

The BSW does have lower arm actuators in both arms (and a hand in the right arm, along with the AC) for each of the X1, X2, and S2 variants, so tucking them in in the same style as 'Mechs without LAAs seems like an unlikely & undesirable move.

Also, Russ did indicate that PGI is planning to normalize the volume-to-tonnage ratios of the 'Mech models during their rescaling process, thus a MWO BSW would need to have the same overall volume (within a couple of percentage points) as other 55-tonners, so it's not as though they would cut-out the volume represented by the upper arms without having to put it somewhere else.

Another option would be to tilt the arms downward rather than having the elbows held at shoulder-level, reducing the BSW's overall width but giving it the same low-arm stance as the Crab or Marauder.

[Spheroid]

I just hope that when they add the Bushwacker they don't move the ballistic hardpoints too far up the cheeks to allow the larger guns like the AC-20 or gauss. Everything else about the mech would seem very easy to model.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 31 January 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

The BSW does have lower arm actuators in both arms (and a hand in the right arm, along with the AC) for each of the X1, X2, and S2 variants, so tucking them in in the same style as 'Mechs without LAAs seems like an unlikely & undesirable move.

Also, Russ did indicate that PGI is planning to normalize the volume-to-tonnage ratios of the 'Mech models during their rescaling process, thus a MWO BSW would need to have the same overall volume (within a couple of percentage points) as other 55-tonners, so it's not as though they would cut-out the volume represented by the upper arms without having to put it somewhere else.

Another option would be to tilt the arms downward rather than having the elbows held at shoulder-level, reducing the BSW's overall width but giving it the same low-arm stance as the Crab or Marauder.

no real reason they couldn't give yaw to shoulder level lower arm actuators too, depending on design. Or make the upper arm section extremely short. As a mixed hardpoint mech, I think it's hardly likely to be a metabreaker.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 31 January 2016 - 10:10 AM.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 January 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

probably,. but tbh, not too many Mediums are impressive with STD engines. Either too slow, or too undergunned. And it's not a laser vomit mech, so it has that "against it".

By not being laser vomit, I'd think that's a mark in its favor.... I detest laser vomit meta, it feels so skill less.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 January 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

no real reason they couldn't give yaw to shoulder level lower arm actuators too, depending on design. Or make the upper arm section extremely short. As a mixed hardpoint mech, I think it's hardly likely to be a metabreaker.

Yes, and the horizontal movement would be controlled by the LAAs while the vertical movement would be controlled by the UAAs.
But, the LAAs and the UAAs are (more-or-less) in the same horizontal plane in the TRO line art & its this stance that would make the arm relatively wide.

Also, with how long the BSW's nose tends to be, making the upper arm sections extremely short would lead to clipping issues between the 'Mech's arms and body, or the need to restrict horizontal arm motion to such a degree that it'd lose much of the advantage of having both LAAs in the first place.

[Odanan]

As nobody posted it here yet:


BTW, these feet remind me of the Cerberus.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Bushwhacker +1

[TheArisen]

Odanan, on 01 February 2016 - 06:58 PM, said:

As nobody posted it here yet:


BTW, these feet remind me of the Cerberus.

I want the Cerberus...

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 01 February 2016 - 06:58 PM, said:

As nobody posted it here yet:


BTW, these feet remind me of the Cerberus.

So, given the position of the SRM launcher, we know that those big pauldrons would count as the side-torsos.
IMO, it would be unsurprising if the whole of the "barrel chest" ended up being the CT.

Thoughts?

[Metus regem]

Strum Wealh, on 02 February 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

So, given the position of the SRM launcher, we know that those big pauldrons would count as the side-torsos.
IMO, it would be unsurprising if the whole of the "barrel chest" ended up being the CT.

Thoughts?

Not to mention that the UAC/20 in the RT is also RT... so looks like small-ish CT hit box, average ST's... might make taking a hit on engine size or weapons to take a standard engine worth while...

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 02 February 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

So, given the position of the SRM launcher, we know that those big pauldrons would count as the side-torsos.
IMO, it would be unsurprising if the whole of the "barrel chest" ended up being the CT.

Thoughts?

Early speculation. Actual geometry has not been that relevant to the hitbox layouts in a while.

Areas of particular uncertainty
- Cockpit. Could just as easily end up the upper half of said panel, but size shoudl be approximate.
- Claws. Purely decorative, so getting shot in them should cause no actual meaningful damage to the mech. Thus they shouldn't actually be part of any hitbox.
-Crotch. Some mechs get more of the thing treatment than others.

With contrast enhanced, you can see the second SRM rack on the left side of the "barrel chest", indicating it too is ST.

I speculate with it's potential mobility, that it's CT will be pretty well shielded, and that it's arms should, if the modelers are faithful, also work quite well as shields. With the amount of firepower being far greater than it can realistically use at any one time, sacrificing an arm as a shield to save the Mech, and preserve it's torso weapons and and such should not be much of a negative.

In fact would not be surprised to see sword and board versions with 3xLPL in one arm, the other arm empty. Gauss and ERLL or a 4th LPL in the Torsos and as many SRMs as hardpoints allow for.

Thoughts?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 02 February 2016 - 08:59 AM.