20517 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 27 October 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

The Catapult's missile pods are "separate" because that's where they're supposed to be - they are, and always have been, located in the 'Mech's arms rather than the side-torsi.
By contrast, the Mad Cat's missile launchers have always been in the side-torsi rather than the arms, with the arms always used to house direct-fire weapons.

Actually, the canonical (and, thus, "version that PGI is most likely to use") Mad Cat B's single Gauss Rifle is located in the Right Arm, with the LPL and SPL in the left arm, the Artemis-linked SRM-4 located in the Right Torso, and the Artemis-linked LRM-10 located in the Left Torso.
But, yes, the MWLL version is just all manner of wrong.

Personally, I would imagine that the missile pods could be vertically-lowered relative to the central fuselage, and the shoulder joints (that is, the arms' attachment points) could be moved outward (that is, away from the main body; that would/should also have the added advantage of helping to alleviate any arm/leg clipping issues).
In other words, it could look something like the LT/LA assembly of the MWO Orion attached to the side of a MWO Catapult body.

Personally, I would be unsurprised if the MWO Mad Cat got the same "traditional canopy" makeover that the Catapult (which also usually also had the same "front-and-center, glass-up-to-the-nose" look in BT) received.
(Likewise, I suspect that the Daishi could potentially end up with a recessed cockpit like that of the MWO Stalker.)

Thoughts?

That is my thoughts. I expect a blend of MWO Catapult and traditional Twolf. Though if the STs follow the Catapults tradition, the Missile racks, whole still a problem would be possibly less of one than on other mechs, since the STs of Catapults are traditionally pretty small.

While visually unappealing, another way to reduce forward hit box signature would be to have a more horizontal launch surface on the LRMs, behind the arms.

it of course would not work for SRMs.

But then, if the clans are so advanced, why not a "pop-up" launcher, behind the shoulders, controlled like the missile flaps on the catapult?


thoughts?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 October 2013 - 06:05 AM.

[Scrawny Cowboy]

As I have said since back in CB on the Timber Wolf hitbox speculation, my hope is that the missile boxes will remain part of the side torso. Once the side torso armor is gone, any further damage on the missile boxes will only damage the weapon internal health. And with that either leave the rest of the side torso internal undamaged or equal damage to that of the max weapon internal health

Eh just my thoughts

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 October 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

That is my thoughts. I expect a blend of MWO Catapult and traditional Twolf. Though if the STs follow the Catapults tradition, the Missile racks, whole still a problem would be possibly less of one than on other mechs, since the STs of Catapults are traditionally pretty small.

While visually unappealing, another way to reduce forward hit box signature would be to have a more horizontal launch surface on the LRMs, behind the arms.

it of course would not work for SRMs.

But then, if the clans are so advanced, why not a "pop-up" launcher, behind the shoulders, controlled like the missile flaps on the catapult?


thoughts?

The pop-up launcher would be interesting.
As an alternative, they could rotate upward like the "hidden"/"pop-up" headlights on some cars.


Then again, my personal theory (which, to the best of my knowledge, has no direct support in BT canon) on those missile launchers that don't have launch doors (like those on the Atlas or Orion, for example) has been that the openings of the individual tubes were protected by mechanisms that worked like the diaphragm shutter on some cameras or the iris on the SGC's stargate - that is, a system of blade-like panels cycle open just long enough for the missile to leave the tube when the launcher is triggered, but are otherwise closed to prevent enemy fire, debris, birds, water, and other such things from entering and damaging the missile or the launcher itself.


Besides, the Clans aren't actually that much more advanced than the IS - the tech gap had by-and-large closed by the time of the FedCom Civil War (that is, within ~15 years), with the Clans maintaining some quality advantages (and only a few unique systems, like the Heavy Lasers) to offset the IS's quantity advantage (and their unique systems, like the C3 System), yes?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 27 October 2013 - 07:12 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 27 October 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:

The pop-up launcher would be interesting.
As an alternative, they could rotate upward like the "hidden"/"pop-up" headlights on some cars.


Then again, my personal theory (which, to the best of my knowledge, has no direct support in BT canon) on those missile launchers that don't have launch doors (like those on the Atlas or Orion, for example) has been that the openings of the individual tubes were protected by mechanisms that worked like the diaphragm shutter on some cameras or the iris on the SGC's stargate - that is, a system of blade-like panels cycle open just long enough for the missile to leave the tube when the launcher is triggered, but are otherwise closed to prevent enemy fire, debris, birds, water, and other such things from entering and damaging the missile or the launcher itself.


Besides, the Clans aren't actually that much more advanced than the IS - the tech gap had by-and-large closed by the time of the FedCom Civil War (that is, within ~15 years), with the Clans maintaining some quality advantages (and only a few unique systems, like the Heavy Lasers) to offset the IS's quantity advantage (and their unique systems, like the C3 System), yes?

great ideas, though as for the clans advancement, we have poput weaponry on stealth vehicles and warships, seems minor idea to have them for clan weapons. I do like your swivel idea too, especially since it would be pretty easy to implement, I think.

[John MatriX82]

All in this nice discussion, non-charged up Gauss Rifles still explode xD

Seriously I know those pods should be side torsoes but you agree with me that it wouldn't make that mech that good, you'd blow up like there's no tomorrow if those pods aren't separateo or as a Summoner's missile pod. We'll see how PGI will work it out.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 October 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

great ideas, though as for the clans advancement, we have poput weaponry on stealth vehicles and warships, seems minor idea to have them for clan weapons. I do like your swivel idea too, especially since it would be pretty easy to implement, I think.

I was really going more the other way - that retractable/pop-up weapons probably wouldn't/shouldn't be unheard-of in the IS (albeit, probably more common on naval vessels, Combat Vehicles, Drop Ships, and eventually WarShips than on BattleMechs).

Though, the general shapes of Clan 'Mechs do seem to lend themselves to the idea moreso than the IS 'Mechs - the same pop-up launcher idea could work just as well for the shoulder launchers on the Daishi or Masakari (assuming PGI puts all 10 tubes (to represent the Prime configuration's single LRM-10 launcher) in one place (as with the newer Masakari artwork) rather than splitting them up (as with the original Masakari artwork)) as for the Mad Cat.
(Though, I can see it working on later IS 'Mechs like the Sunder, the Rakshasa, the MAD-9M, and perhaps a few others.)

Though, that also begs the question: would/should something like that become a fixed-type hardpoint on an OmniMech, where only (in this specific example) missiles could be installed?
Unless they also implement telescoping barrels, it wouldn't make sense to have a pop-up AC or Gauss Rifle on a 'Mech in the same manner & locations as pop-up missiles...

John MatriX82, on 27 October 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

All in this nice discussion, non-charged up Gauss Rifles still explode xD

Seriously I know those pods should be side torsoes but you agree with me that it wouldn't make that mech that good, you'd blow up like there's no tomorrow if those pods aren't separateo or as a Summoner's missile pod. We'll see how PGI will work it out.

IMO, the Thor's missile pod would most likely be handled in the same way as that on the Thunderbolt - where, IIRC, shooting the pod itself still counts as damage to the side-torso in which the launcher is located.

Since Clan XLs only take two criticals in each side-torso (rather than three, as with the IS XLs), one would/should need to destroy both side-torsi (or one side-torso & the CT, or just the CT) to kill an XL-equipped Clan 'Mech (as opposed to only needing to destroy one side-torso or the CT for an XL-equipped IS 'Mech).

[FireSlade]

I am for going the simple route seeing that the Timber Wolf never had pop-out launchers in canon. I am betting that they will not be that much of a liability as is being proven with the Phoenix mechs right now. People tend to aim for center of mass when you have a moving, twisting, and unpredictable target. Besides we need some reason to keep people in Innersphere mechs so that us Clanners have something to shoot at

[Colddawg]

FireSlade, on 27 October 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

I am for going the simple route seeing that the Timber Wolf never had pop-out launchers in canon. I am betting that they will not be that much of a liability as is being proven with the Phoenix mechs right now. People tend to aim for center of mass when you have a moving, twisting, and unpredictable target. Besides we need some reason to keep people in Innersphere mechs so that us Clanners have something to shoot at

They typically don't aim center mass on the Cata A1 do they? The Timber Wolf would be more comparable to the Catapult.

[FireSlade]

Colddawg, on 27 October 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

They typically don't aim center mass on the Cata A1 do they? The Timber Wolf would be more comparable to the Catapult.

I have not used the CAT-A1 yet but with my C1, C4, and K2 8 times out of 10 they will aim for my torso. The other times it is usually a pesky light trying to leg me to reduce my mobility or get a lucky ammo explosion. Actually my K2 will lose it's arms before my others due to me poking my head up over a hill to snipe people. I am not saying that it does not happen but if the pilot is smart and constantly moving, twisting, and just trying to be unpredictable it becomes much easier to hit something, like center of mass, than the arms that you could miss hitting. As we all know some damage is better than no damage and why waste the heat/ammo to remove some weapons or in the case of the Timber Wolf, depending on how PGI does things, pretty much just slow it down and weaken it. Now if PGI makes the CXL act the same as the ISXL then those ears are going to make it that much more fragile.

Edited by FireSlade, 27 October 2013 - 02:34 PM.

[John MatriX82]

Strum Wealh, on 27 October 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Since Clan XLs only take two criticals in each side-torso (rather than three, as with the IS XLs), one would/should need to destroy both side-torsi (or one side-torso & the CT, or just the CT) to kill an XL-equipped Clan 'Mech (as opposed to only needing to destroy one side-torso or the CT for an XL-equipped IS 'Mech).

Yep I know, but still it would be an easy way to deal with them since a catapult would lose the arms (and that is a problem especially for the A1 and C4 to an extent) but the Madcat would blow up "easily".

Colddawg, on 27 October 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

They typically don't aim center mass on the Cata A1 do they? The Timber Wolf would be more comparable to the Catapult.

You tipically aim at the head of Catapults xD

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 27 October 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

I was really going more the other way - that retractable/pop-up weapons probably wouldn't/shouldn't be unheard-of in the IS (albeit, probably more common on naval vessels, Combat Vehicles, Drop Ships, and eventually WarShips than on BattleMechs).

Though, the general shapes of Clan 'Mechs do seem to lend themselves to the idea moreso than the IS 'Mechs - the same pop-up launcher idea could work just as well for the shoulder launchers on the Daishi or Masakari (assuming PGI puts all 10 tubes (to represent the Prime configuration's single LRM-10 launcher) in one place (as with the newer Masakari artwork) rather than splitting them up (as with the original Masakari artwork)) as for the Mad Cat.
(Though, I can see it working on later IS 'Mechs like the Sunder, the Rakshasa, the MAD-9M, and perhaps a few others.)

Though, that also begs the question: would/should something like that become a fixed-type hardpoint on an OmniMech, where only (in this specific example) missiles could be installed?
Unless they also implement telescoping barrels, it wouldn't make sense to have a pop-up AC or Gauss Rifle on a 'Mech in the same manner & locations as pop-up missiles...

IMO, the Thor's missile pod would most likely be handled in the same way as that on the Thunderbolt - where, IIRC, shooting the pod itself still counts as damage to the side-torso in which the launcher is located.

Since Clan XLs only take two criticals in each side-torso (rather than three, as with the IS XLs), one would/should need to destroy both side-torsi (or one side-torso & the CT, or just the CT) to kill an XL-equipped Clan 'Mech (as opposed to only needing to destroy one side-torso or the CT for an XL-equipped IS 'Mech).

good point, and pop out barrels, while cool looking in the avengers, doesn't actually work.....so........
(Of course not every single slot on an omni need be omni. Or, the whole box gets replaced by a traditional barreled weapons. *shrugs*)

[Spheroid]

I predict the shoulder box will be of a scalable size with a 2x20 tube max per ear.

Edited by Spheroid, 27 October 2013 - 02:36 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 October 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

good point, and pop out barrels, while cool looking in the avengers, doesn't actually work.....so........
(Of course not every single slot on an omni need be omni. Or, the whole box gets replaced by a traditional barreled weapons. *shrugs*)

I was thinking the same thing, about not all slots being omni slots.

In fact, this led to the (unlikely, IMO) possibility that true omni hardpoints could be largely (if not entirely) eschewed in favor of MekTek-style hybrid hardpoints.

• B/E = ballistic/energy only
  
• B/M = ballistic/missile only
  
• E/M = energy/missile only

With this, one way to set up the Mad Cat's hardpoints (such that one could actually create every canon configuration on a single 'Mech) might be:

• Head: none
  
• CT: 1 B/E
  
• LT: 1 B/E, 1 B/M, 2 E/M, 1 AMS
  
• RT: 1 B/E, 1 B/M, 2 E/M, 1 ECM, 1 Targeting Computer (if those get their own hardpoint type)
  
• LA: 1 B/E, 1 E/M
  
• RA: 1 B/E, 1E/M
  
• LL: none
  
• RL: none

If they did this together with locking-down the core components (engine type/rating, structure type/crits, armor type/amount/crits, fixed equipment locations/crits) to control tonnage and crit availability, it could be a reasonable way to maintain the spirit of OmniMech customizability while also putting it into a state where it cannot get too much out of control, yes?

John MatriX82, on 27 October 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Yep I know, but still it would be an easy way to deal with them since a catapult would lose the arms (and that is a problem especially for the A1 and C4 to an extent) but the Madcat would blow up "easily".

How so?

Even with stock armor and structure ratios (with the actual values doubled for MWO), it would take 28 units of damage to strip the backs of both side-torsi of armor (14 per side-torso), vs 18 units of damage to do the same to the CT.
Likewise, it would take a total of 64 units of damage to strip the fronts of both side-torsi of armor (32 per side-torso), vs 46 units of damage to do the same to the CT.

With stock armor, it would take ~40-50% more damage to strip the Mad Cat's side-torsi than it would take to do the same to the CT from the same direction.
The same holds true if one also incluses the structure points needed to "blow out" a section - it would take 164 units of damage to blow out both of a Mad Cat's side-torsi from the front, vs 118 to units of damage to do the same to the CT (a ~40% difference).

Short of the Mad Cat's side-torsi extending forward along the central body to the same degree as those of the Stalker or Raven (such that the CT is disproportionally difficult to hit, versus the side-torsi), simply coring the 'Mech (from either the front or the back) would be a far more efficient way to kill it than blowing out both side-torsi, yes?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 27 October 2013 - 04:14 PM.

[Colddawg]

Spheroid, on 27 October 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

I predict the shoulder box will be of a scalable size with a 2x20 tube max per ear.

2 LRM 20's per ear?

[Spheroid]

Colddawg, on 27 October 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

2 LRM 20's per ear?

40 tubes max, 20 which will be visible. Similar how the Catapult and Jager-A work. I don't expect the shoulder to be bigger in size than the LRM20 Catapult.

[FireSlade]

Spheroid, on 27 October 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

40 tubes max, 20 which will be visible. Similar how the Catapult and Jager-A work. I don't expect the shoulder to be bigger in size than the LRM20 Catapult.

PGI messed up in early development when they made the first mechs where the visible tubes were the same ones for each launcher allowing you to fire more missiles at once than intended. An example of this is the Centurion CN9-A can launch 30 missiles at the same time (as long as you use 3 LRM10s) even though it only has 10 visible tubes. They fixed this with the new mechs and have to do a pass on the old ones to fix this. So if the Timber Wolf has the ability to mount 2 launchers per side torso then you will see a second launcher added to the ST. Basically you can only shoot as many missiles as visible tubes.

On a side note to what Strum Wealh said, it makes sense that they will limit the Omni to a point that it makes sense. I am hoping though that they follow canon in that they could equip equipment that did not originally come with the stock design. Aidan Pryde had the MPL and machine guns removed to free up room for 4 JJs to give his Timber Wolf similar maneuverability to his old Summoner. I have been drooling over piloting the "Pryde" variant since the day I had read about it in the Jade Phoenix Trilogy and would love for MWO to let me pilot it.

[Strum Wealh]

FireSlade, on 27 October 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

On a side note to what Strum Wealh said, it makes sense that they will limit the Omni to a point that it makes sense. I am hoping though that they follow canon in that they could equip equipment that did not originally come with the stock design. Aidan Pryde had the MPL and machine guns removed to free up room for 4 JJs to give his Timber Wolf similar maneuverability to his old Summoner. I have been drooling over piloting the "Pryde" variant since the day I had read about it in the Jade Phoenix Trilogy and would love for MWO to let me pilot it.

Unless they're part of the base design (which isn't supposed to be modifiable) as is the case with the Thor, the Gladiator, and the Shadow Cat, Jump Jets are supposed to be pod-mounted.

As several of the OmniMechs have canonical jump-capable alternate configurations (Pryde's Mad Cat & the Mad Cat S, the Daishi C, the Loki E, and others) while several have no canonical jump-capable configurations (the Masakari, Gargoyle, Cauldron-Born, Vulture, and Ryoken, among others), it's anyone's guess how PGI will address the issue.

[Bishop Steiner]

FireSlade, on 27 October 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

PGI messed up in early development when they made the first mechs where the visible tubes were the same ones for each launcher allowing you to fire more missiles at once than intended. An example of this is the Centurion CN9-A can launch 30 missiles at the same time (as long as you use 3 LRM10s) even though it only has 10 visible tubes. They fixed this with the new mechs and have to do a pass on the old ones to fix this. So if the Timber Wolf has the ability to mount 2 launchers per side torso then you will see a second launcher added to the ST. Basically you can only shoot as many missiles as visible tubes.

On a side note to what Strum Wealh said, it makes sense that they will limit the Omni to a point that it makes sense. I am hoping though that they follow canon in that they could equip equipment that did not originally come with the stock design. Aidan Pryde had the MPL and machine guns removed to free up room for 4 JJs to give his Timber Wolf similar maneuverability to his old Summoner. I have been drooling over piloting the "Pryde" variant since the day I had read about it in the Jade Phoenix Trilogy and would love for MWO to let me pilot it.

also, Aidan usually piloted a stock variant Summoner, using one of the standard configs. But as a Ristar, he could eventually configure his mech more than standard. I am not a huge fan of the"everyone is special" mindset, which has wussified our society. People should have to unlock the ability for open configuration by placing in or winning in official PGI Clan only Tournaments.

[FireSlade]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 October 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

also, Aidan usually piloted a stock variant Summoner, using one of the standard configs. But as a Ristar, he could eventually configure his mech more than standard. I am not a huge fan of the"everyone is special" mindset, which has wussified our society. People should have to unlock the ability for open configuration by placing in or winning in official PGI Clan only Tournaments.

I would do it in a heart beat. One of my favorite IS mechs at the moment is the Ilya Muromets but I do miss the added options that I get from running my JJ equipped mechs (been saving up for a 3D but I keep buying new mechs to play with). I am one who usually maxes my JJs and will use it from gaining a better vantage point, turning, jumping over my enemies, spreading damge, etc. Plus I have been planning on joining the Clans first thing due to me relating with their society among other things.

[Bishop Steiner]

If the TimberWolf didn't get ya worried, hopefully this one will.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 28 October 2013 - 05:11 PM.