23 replies to this topic

[Birddog FAC]

I would like to start off by saying that I understand that a large section of the community thinks or may think that Quad Mechs should not be introduced. This being said I would like to state my reasons and possible sujestions for implimentation.

Reasons:

1. It would add another playstyle to the game

2. it would give Avid Mech builders a new set of "restrictions" to work with.

3 it would in my opinion add a depth not seen in a mechwarrior game.

Sujestions for implimentation:

1. USE A,S,W,D like FPS games with A and D being used to strafe the mech (a quad only capability)

2. use the mouse controlled torso twist to affect orientation changes (this works because when stationary a quad would turn in place and while moving it would need a wider arch to complete a turn especialy at high speeds)

3. allow a 30-50 degree arch to weapons mounted on the Quad (as most if not all are mounted in the torso) this will help the mechs playability while not overpowering it and account for the 90 degree forward arch of weapons in the boardgame)

I understand that a lot of programing and modeling would have to be completed to make this work and impliment the mechs into game I just belive PGI is up to the challenge and that it would bring a new depth to the Mechwarrior franchise that has yet to be seen

Also I would like peoples opinions on Tracked and wheeled vehical implimention


I also know im weired but i want to see thie urban mech in this game. I know alot of people dislike it because of its boardgame stats but in all honesty its just another mech that can be customized and fallows the rules of any other like the spider or Jenner. alos it would have a low profile with high mounted weapons so i dont realy see the bad i would love to see a 156kph urbie waddling accross the battlefield with a PPC and a couble MGs

Anyway please leave your opinions and i will ask nicely that you try not to be too rude or troll too much.

Thanks

Giggiling Doom

[wanderer]

It's actually a matter of mechanics, not lack of desire- that is, they can't properly animate a quad rig. Nothing more.

[FupDup]

Quads would probably suck because they have drastically fewer critical slots to build with. Basically take any battlemech and replace both arms with an additional set of legs, and that's what your critical slot allocation will look like.

[wanderer]

FupDup, on 25 December 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

Quads would probably suck because they have drastically fewer critical slots to build with. Basically take any battlemech and replace both arms with an additional set of legs, and that's what your critical slot allocation will look like.

I disagree. Quads have multiple benefits. Losing one leg isn't nearly as crippling. Quads can sidestep at high speeds and have a lower signature, and generally would be more prone to taking some damage across its heavier armored legs. Weapon mounts would be ideal for hill humping given quad design as well.

The quad IS more restricted on space, but the concept that languished with Scorpions came a long way and was just beginning to find traction again in the Clan era. If it wasn't for the lack of ability in animating a quad in motion, they'd be wonderful additions.

[Birddog FAC]

I don't really understand why they cant animate them is it the Engine that is the problem because there are plenty of things that they could model the movement off of



also nobody is commenting on the URBIE and why wont they add it ???

[Aethon]

Giggling Doom, on 25 December 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

*request for quad mechs*

I am no defender of PGI, but I can tell you that setting up a quad mech in CryEngine is no small undertaking. There is a reason it was never done in MWLL, in spite of their doing things that CryTek said were impossible.

[Vassago Rain]

Giggling Doom, on 25 December 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

I don't really understand why they cant animate them is it the Engine that is the problem because there are plenty of things that they could model the movement off of



also nobody is commenting on the URBIE and why wont they add it ???

They're not adding the urbie because it's useless.
You can already replicate the urbie on a spider, anyway.

[Anjian]

The last time I played quad mechs, it was from Chromehounds and Armored Core (from the same developers anyway).

The real benefit of using four legs is stability which also leads to accuracy. Two legs are not the optimal solution for handling recoil, although battlemechs tend to use energy weapons and missiles that have little recoil, while most of the AC weapons are pretty small and short ranged anyway, equivalent to a low velocity HEAT weapon.

The four leggers are used for extreme ballistic weapons, larger rifles like for sniping, larger cannons like for artillery bombardment, massive rotating gatling autocannons that can output DPS from hell. Although one can argue that using large, heavy, stout, bipedal legs can to a degree, handle all that, and that reverse joints can further handle recoil load more than front jointed (chicken jointed vs human jointed). Then from a point, a quad leg takes over.

In terms of general combat, quad legs add more weight, despite the leg redundancy, lower height and profile which makes them harder to hit. There are more joints, more complication, more myomers needed to run them. Quite likely they won't move as fast as well. The result of this is that for the equivalent weight, you get less firepower, more cost, greater maintenance than the equivalent two legger (although one can argue, that tracks are probably the most efficient of all).

[Brody319]

The problem isn't that they don't want quadmechs, its that its a hardware, animation, and overall just a resource drain currently.
Entirely new animations, entirely new coding, entirely new models. PGI just doesn't really wanna deal with it right now.

[Alek Ituin]

Anjian, on 25 December 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

The last time I played quad mechs, it was from Chromehounds and Armored Core (from the same developers anyway).

The real benefit of using four legs is stability which also leads to accuracy. Two legs are not the optimal solution for handling recoil, although battlemechs tend to use energy weapons and missiles that have little recoil, while most of the AC weapons are pretty small and short ranged anyway, equivalent to a low velocity HEAT weapon.

The four leggers are used for extreme ballistic weapons, larger rifles like for sniping, larger cannons like for artillery bombardment, massive rotating gatling autocannons that can output DPS from hell. Although one can argue that using large, heavy, stout, bipedal legs can to a degree, handle all that, and that reverse joints can further handle recoil load more than front jointed (chicken jointed vs human jointed). Then from a point, a quad leg takes over.

In terms of general combat, quad legs add more weight, despite the leg redundancy, lower height and profile which makes them harder to hit. There are more joints, more complication, more myomers needed to run them. Quite likely they won't move as fast as well. The result of this is that for the equivalent weight, you get less firepower, more cost, greater maintenance than the equivalent two legger (although one can argue, that tracks are probably the most efficient of all).

Obviously, you've never seen quadruped animals run. Or spiders. I watched a camel spider clear over 10 feet in 1.5-2 seconds. Little f**kers can RUN.

The only real limitation is leg mass, which would require each leg to be made of an incredibly lightweight frame, with thick plate only on the outside facing. Otherwise, multiple legs is superior in redundancy and agility. Again, watch a spider that's missing a leg, it can still get up and run like hell. Show me a quadruped of bipedal animal that can do that.

Also, tracked platforms are just as easy to disable as bipedal platforms. Hit a track link, cause the entire thing to fly off, and you've immobilized it entirely. Which is why I chuckle when people say tanks are better than Mechs because they don't have legs, or some shenanigans like that.

[CDLord HHGD]

wanderer, on 25 December 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

I disagree. Quads have multiple benefits. Losing one leg isn't nearly as crippling. Quads can sidestep at high speeds and have a lower signature, and generally would be more prone to taking some damage across its heavier armored legs. Weapon mounts would be ideal for hill humping given quad design as well.

The quad IS more restricted on space, but the concept that languished with Scorpions came a long way and was just beginning to find traction again in the Clan era. If it wasn't for the lack of ability in animating a quad in motion, they'd be wonderful additions.

The thing is a GD AT-AT......

[Pjwned]

I've never fully understood why bipedal mechs in this game can't strafe slowly to be honest, it's not like it would be impossible by any means to sidestep a bit.

I do know torso twisting makes up for it somewhat since you can easily be moving 1 direction and shoot in another, which is cool, but sometimes a slow strafe would be pretty nice, say at 1/3 top speed or something.

I expect that if somebody responds it will just be to say "STRAFING IS NOT MECHWARRIOR!!!!!!!" rather than why it wouldn't actually fit in the game, so I won't be surprised if that's what somebody says just so you know. You could argue that strafing wouldn't be good because of it promoting even more peek-a-boo shooting from cover, but that's why the strafing would be particularly slow.

[Metus regem]

cdlord, on 26 December 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

The thing is a GD AT-AT......

Where is my tow cable for my Phoenix Hawk LAM....

[Ovion]

Vassago Rain, on 25 December 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:

They're not adding the urbie because it's useless.
You can already replicate the urbie on a spider, anyway.

Concept art and Russ says otherwise. It's coming kid.

As to the OP.

There's a couple of reasons.

1: It's difficult to do against the return.
This makes it less attractive to create as a business, needing probably as much work or more than it took to get the Clan Mechs in game.

2: Incredibly Limited pool of options.
25 Total Quads in Battletech.
Of these 25, only 7 are in-timeline.
And of that, only 2 are practially usable (Scorpion and Goliath) and both would need non time-line variants introduced.
The remaining 2 IS ones are a LAM and lostech, and the other 3 are Clan Battlemechs (without enough variants in-timeline)
Then up to 2060, only another 5 frames, not all of which have enough variants, become available.

As per the list:
Quads available 3050 and prior (current timeline):
Medium - Scorpion (Only 2 Variants till 3067)
Medium - Scorpion LAM (Failed Prototype (one variant), and it's a LAM)
Assault - Goliath (Only 2 variants before 2063, one requires Rocket Launcher 10s, and very rare till 3060)
Assault - Xanthos (Only 2 variants pre-3068, lost mech till 3070)

Clan Battlemech:
Fire Scorpion, Snow Fox, Thunder Stallion

Quads available between 3051-3060 (next 10 years):
Barghest, Bishamon, Sirocco, Stalking Spider, Tarantula


Ultimately, I like Quads.
Especially some of the 3100+ ones.
The Antlion, Sarath, Jaguar, Stalking Spider (1and 2), Trebaruna, Thunderfox and White Flame are all really nice looking mechs.
The Jaguar and Snowfox I'd likely buy immediately upon their release.

But it's just not happening in MWO.

Giggling Doom, on 25 December 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

I also know im weired but i want to see thie urban mech in this game. I know alot of people dislike it because of its boardgame stats but in all honesty its just another mech that can be customized and fallows the rules of any other like the spider or Jenner. alos it would have a low profile with high mounted weapons so i dont realy see the bad i would love to see a 156kph urbie waddling accross the battlefield with a PPC and a couble MGs

A lot of us like the trashcan.
Come join us

Though it wouldn't be hitting 156, not even close.
That's Spider/Commando/Locust territory.

Urbs would likely get a max 125 engine (and that's breaking the equation somewhat anyway).
It's unlikely it'll end up faster than 75kph.
But that's OK, it is what it is.

If you want, I can pull out my how-to-make-an-urbie guide (or you can find it in the Urbie thread).

Edited by Ovion, 26 December 2014 - 08:47 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

also nobody is commenting on the URBIE and why wont they add it ???

The Christmas email has the Urbie concept art in it, and there's a mega-thread about Urbie in the Announcements section.

Quote

The thing is a GD AT-AT......

^ referring to the Goliath.

Yep, it's a notable exception to the general one- it's built to fire long-range and clear obstacles, thus the PPC/LRM layout and tall profile. Designs like the Scorpion, later the Tarantula or the Barghest follow the lower-slung configuration, with the occasional long-range fire model mimicking the Goliath instead.

More quads follow the first-generation Xanthos than the Goliath model, though both design philosophies endure- tall platforms for fire support quads, squatter bent-leg configurations or "prowler" quads otherwise.

Edited by wanderer, 26 December 2014 - 11:13 AM.

[Xoco]

Would love to see these quads/wheeled/tracks mech. Just because I have always thought that bipedal mechs seems a bit impractical.

[MechaDonkey]

Pjwned, on 26 December 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

I've never fully understood why bipedal mechs in this game can't strafe slowly to be honest, it's not like it would be impossible by any means to sidestep a bit.

I do know torso twisting makes up for it somewhat since you can easily be moving 1 direction and shoot in another, which is cool, but sometimes a slow strafe would be pretty nice, say at 1/3 top speed or something.

I expect that if somebody responds it will just be to say "STRAFING IS NOT MECHWARRIOR!!!!!!!" rather than why it wouldn't actually fit in the game, so I won't be surprised if that's what somebody says just so you know. You could argue that strafing wouldn't be good because of it promoting even more peek-a-boo shooting from cover, but that's why the strafing would be particularly slow.

Because Bipedal mechs legs in the game are all on fixed joints. They don't move left to right. If they did, most mechs in game now would have legs trying to snap off. There probably isn't enough clearance for that spacewise on the frame of the mech.

Also, strafing is not mechwarrior.

Had to be said lol.

[Pjwned]

MechaDonkey, on 27 December 2014 - 02:36 AM, said:

Because Bipedal mechs legs in the game are all on fixed joints. They don't move left to right. If they did, most mechs in game now would have legs trying to snap off. There probably isn't enough clearance for that spacewise on the frame of the mech.

Also, strafing is not mechwarrior.

Had to be said lol.

If that's the reason then it could be an option to have more crit slots taken up with equipment in the legs in order to strafe, or it could just be a feature in certain mech variants and not others (e.g lower arm acutators in some mechs but missing from others like Jagers and Jenners) so that way it would come with a cost while keeping the flavor of Battlemechs.

I'm not really expecting or demanding anything as far as strafing though.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Pjwned, on 27 December 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

If that's the reason then it could be an option to have more crit slots taken up with equipment in the legs in order to strafe, or it could just be a feature in certain mech variants and not others (e.g lower arm acutators in some mechs but missing from others like Jagers and Jenners) so that way it would come with a cost while keeping the flavor of Battlemechs.

I'm not really expecting or demanding anything as far as strafing though.

torso twist makes it fairly unnecessary, but since quads cannot torso twist they gain the benefit of strafing. Really the lack is a legacy of the table top. Granted 'Mechs in lore had limited strafing ability, because a hex on a map sheet is actually 30 meters across and a 'Mech could do all sorts of things within that radius. It is simply not a practical movement for bipedal 'Mechs to have.

[verybad]

Giggling Doom, on 25 December 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

I don't really understand why they cant animate them is it the Engine that is the problem because there are plenty of things that they could model the movement off of



also nobody is commenting on the URBIE and why wont they add it ???

They "could" animate them, however a quad mech takes a lot more work because each leg has to be animated in relation to the angle and height of the ground as well as in diggerent methods from biped legs (ie left and right as well as forward and backward).

It won't happen because it' would take littereally an arm and a leg to do. It's a real pain in the arse.