57 replies to this topic

[-Wulf-]

Darzok, on 04 April 2015 - 04:04 AM, said:

I would add to what Mercer Skye said the arms are not only used to punch/grab the enemy but hold melee weapons.

The Yen-Lo-Wang was originally armed with an Autocannon/20 in place of the Centurion's Autocannon/10, two Medium Lasers and either a Hatchet or a Claw.

There is no melee in game and most likely never will be but in the Lore the YLW would be running around with a Hatchet(axe) to chop up mech.

Darzok I dont want to be a buzzkill but your information on the yen-lo-wang is in error. Yen lo Wang was a Individual unique mech and the only one like it. Justain-Xaing-Allard built the yen lo from a busted up centurion he accuired on Solaris 7. Without getting into lore and a fanboy forum argument, they yen lo wouldnt/couldnt carry a melee weapon, not enough internal slots and or weight to carry the weapon. It was armed with an AC/20 and 2ML according to the lore books (Warriors Triliogy- En gaurd, Reposte, Coupe) Hence it was individualized and personalized by its pilot. Lotts of folks think that the hero mechs are production mechs the is is a falshood. Almost all of the HERO mechs in MWO are based of a single unique mech of any given weight class. There is no full production run of the HERO mechs they are one of a kind and were never mass produced.

Sarna is absolutly incorrect on the YEN LO. the Original Specs are outlined in the books wich makes no mention of the claws or spikes Sarna has listed. Another SARNA inaccuracy rears its ugly head. Remember folks Sarna is a WIKI that can and has been edited many times by many people, If you want to read the specs for yourself go get the books and read it for yourself I think its paige 88 of reposte that outlines what the yen low actually carried and how it came about. (please stop quoting sarna as actual fact its a WIKI and hence a WIKI is deemed an un-credible source of information, by ALL higher learning institutions.)

As far as arms go all the forum post up to me posting this pretty much said it correctly. Arms and more importantly Hand Actuation, is the mechanic that allows a mech (Atlas for instance) to climb mountains, pick up blown off limbs, elementals, pushing other mechs off buildings. (wife loves pushing mechs off tall buildings to wach them humpty dumpty when they hit the ground) punching, all mechs can kick as well. thats what makes the locust so evil on TT is the fact it can run circles around heavy and assaults literally kicking the stuffing out of them.

Locust were not anti infantry mechs, they were battlemechs thier primary jobs were scouting, flanking, and area denial, PLAy the first mech game in this Franchise and you will learn that fact. Battletech-Crecent Hawks Inception, its told in the newspaper that you read in one of the random towns. Oh and in the mini movie you get to READ in the game.

Edited by Falkwulf, 04 April 2015 - 05:07 AM.

[Mercer Skye]

Molossian Dog, on 04 April 2015 - 04:41 AM, said:

Battletech has a few gaps in its lore. Less than other fictional universes, yes, but if you look closer you will find some. Basically it started as little as a beer&pretzels game and stuff just got added and became more serious gradually.
Some parts of the early lore got retconned, other parts should still be taken with a grain of salt.


Also: Battletech is not the future. Battletech is the future of the 80ies.

That is a really good point as well. MWO is kind of like the Fallout of Sci-Fi space opera. A lot of people point out that it should have been virtually impossible to 'lose' the knowledge that was lost through the Succession Wars. Except, in the 80s, it wasn't common knowledge quite yet of just how much information would be possible to store on a computer. Theories, but nothing concrete.

So in BTech, it kind of expands on that notion that there was a good chance we never found a way to create data banks capable of storing the vast amount of information that would go into making BattleMechs.

It's part of why Giant Stompy Robots somehow survive the gauntlet of logic to become the most devastating weapons of war in the future (Although, to a small degree, this might not be so much of a stretch....maybe not BTech-like robots, but still....)

[Molossian Dog]

Other uses:

-uprooting trees to use a club
-dragging legged comrades from the battlefield
-ripping out beams to use as a club
-clearing debris and obstacles from blocked roads, especially for the conventionals (tanks etc)
-ripping out limbs to use as a club
-steadying yourself against a cliff/building on slippery or broken terrain
-picking up rocks to use as a club
-digging out friendly mechs under collapsed buildings
-ripping out lanterns to use as a club (or toothpick, depends)
-opening gates and making holes into walls without headbutting them
-wielding light Mechs as a club (requires triple strenght myomer)
-carrying stuff ranging from loot, additional supplies, people (whole or in pieces) construction material etc
-showing the clamz the middle finger (requires middle finger) to use as a club...ehrm...wait...strike that

Edited by Molossian Dog, 04 April 2015 - 05:01 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

cdlord, on 04 April 2015 - 04:48 AM, said:

If I was an Atlas pilot in lore (still trying to get my RPG conversion off the ground), I'd make it my bucket lists to use them all.

true, but without TSM, an Atlas can only lift 10 tons per arm. So, it would have to be an armless commando.......

[Molossian Dog]

You could always rip these pesky arms off beforehand.

To use as a club...

[Mercer Skye]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 April 2015 - 05:01 AM, said:

true, but without TSM, an Atlas can only lift 10 tons per arm. So, it would have to be an armless commando.......

Which it likely would be (probably legless, too) by the time the Atlas caught it to use it as such

[Alistair Winter]

Before we talk about why mechs have arms, we should talk about why they have legs. Even modern 60+ ton tanks will easily climb hills and cross terrain that these mech struggle with. And have 360 degree torso twist, like the Urbie.

It makes no sense what so ever and I don't think there's much to say except that it looks cool.

The real question is why the 3D artists took Alex Iglesias concept art for the Centurion and essentially made a bodybuilder version that was twice as wide. It's absolutely ridiculously big for a 50 ton mech. Why did they make it's shoulders as wide as a Direwolf's? That's the real question.

[Molossian Dog]

Alistair Winter, on 04 April 2015 - 05:27 AM, said:

.... It's absolutely ridiculously big for a 50 ton mech. ....

Edited by Molossian Dog, 04 April 2015 - 05:33 AM.

[Darzok]

Falkwulf, on 04 April 2015 - 04:51 AM, said:

Darzok I dont want to be a buzzkill but your information on the yen-lo-wang is in error. Yen lo Wang was a Individual unique mech and the only one like it. Justain-Xaing-Allard built the yen lo from a busted up centurion he accuired on Solaris 7. Without getting into lore and a fanboy forum argument, they yen lo wouldnt/couldnt carry a melee weapon, not enough internal slots and or weight to carry the weapon. It was armed with an AC/20 and 2ML according to the lore books (Warriors Triliogy- En gaurd, Reposte, Coupe) Hence it was individualized and personalized by its pilot. Lotts of folks think that the hero mechs are production mechs the is is a falshood. Almost all of the HERO mechs in MWO are based of a single unique mech of any given weight class. There is no full production run of the HERO mechs they are one of a kind and were never mass produced.

Sarna is absolutly incorrect on the YEN LO. the Original Specs are outlined in the books wich makes no mention of the claws or spikes Sarna has listed. Another SARNA inaccuracy rears its ugly head. Remember folks Sarna is a WIKI that can and has been edited many times by many people, If you want to read the specs for yourself go get the books and read it for yourself I think its paige 88 of reposte that outlines what the yen low actually carried and how it came about. (please stop quoting sarna as actual fact its a WIKI and hence a WIKI is deemed an un-credible source of information, by ALL higher learning institutions.)

As far as arms go all the forum post up to me posting this pretty much said it correctly. Arms and more importantly Hand Actuation, is the mechanic that allows a mech (Atlas for instance) to climb mountains, pick up blown off limbs, elementals, pushing other mechs off buildings. (wife loves pushing mechs off tall buildings to wach them humpty dumpty when they hit the ground) punching, all mechs can kick as well. thats what makes the locust so evil on TT is the fact it can run circles around heavy and assaults literally kicking the stuffing out of them.

I did not know that the YLW info was wrong but the point stands that some mechs do in fact use melee weapons.

I would edit it but since you done a quote to fix my error i will leave it.

[Mercer Skye]

Alistair Winter, on 04 April 2015 - 05:27 AM, said:

Before we talk about why mechs have arms, we should talk about why they have legs. Even modern 60+ ton tanks will easily climb hills and cross terrain that these mech struggle with. And have 360 degree torso twist, like the Urbie.

It makes no sense what so ever and I don't think there's much to say except that it looks cool.

The real question is why the 3D artists took Alex Iglesias concept art for the Centurion and essentially made a bodybuilder version that was twice as wide. It's absolutely ridiculously big for a 50 ton mech. Why did they make it's shoulders as wide as a Direwolf's? That's the real question.

An interesting line of thought. My thinking is materials and efficiencies. You look at the specs of a 60T BattleMech, and it is vastly larger than a 60T MBT. You build a track system for that, and you probably run into some serious logistical issues, not to mention increasing the weight by ridiculous numbers.

While Tracks CAN traverse a wide range of terrains better than legs, legs still trump them in a lot of situations. A tank can't straddle a crevasse very well, whereas a 'Mech wouldn't have too much trouble just stepping over.

A big thing to remember is that 'mechs for the most part are actually pretty hollow. It's a relatively thin skeleton covered in plating that is suspended on arms from that framework.

There's also the consideration of gravity. Tracks become fairly useless once you get into a situation where the mass of the tank isn't pushing down on them to provide mobility. Granted, you could build a thruster system to pin them to a surface, but then you have to deal with where to put it to keep from interfering with it.

It really just boils down a coin flip, though, in the end, I believe.

[Tarogato]

Molossian Dog, on 04 April 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

<image>

oh my lord, the eyes on that daishi... I just lost it...

[-Wulf-]

Alistair Winter, on 04 April 2015 - 05:27 AM, said:

Before we talk about why mechs have arms, we should talk about why they have legs. Even modern 60+ ton tanks will easily climb hills and cross terrain that these mech struggle with. And have 360 degree torso twist, like the Urbie.

It makes no sense what so ever and I don't think there's much to say except that it looks cool.

The real question is why the 3D artists took Alex Iglesias concept art for the Centurion and essentially made a bodybuilder version that was twice as wide. It's absolutely ridiculously big for a 50 ton mech. Why did they make it's shoulders as wide as a Direwolf's? That's the real question.

Alistair I agree with you on some points. you right abut modern tanks however there are situations where a MECH is more efficient. Like a tank cant cross any major body of water. A mech can walk off the east bank of the mississippi river and wade through it to emerge on the west bank with no issues even if its submerged completely.

As for scaling, i was told in a email from support, about the scaling issue, its a matter of game mechanics if mechs were scaled correctly then the taller mechs wouldnt be able to target smaller mech correctly. IE a Direwhale doesnt have the ability to even shoot at a spider in its face, it woldnt be able to tilt itself down far enough to even get a fleeting shot off. use for instance the over sized quickdraw. with a 340 xl and scaled correctly the mech would be as difficult to hit as the current firestarter. it would increase TTK wich would make alot of people happy, however it would make the ultra comp players RRRRAAAAGGGEEEE. Meta would be destroyed, mechs that are not teir 1 would be teir 1. Everything would have equal footing wich is directly against what metawarriors have spent real $$$ or months of grinding for. The mechs are supposed to be OP/UP or the game would loose its endgame.

There are several instances where meta dictated the direction of the game. Like taking away arty/airstrike combos and the cooldown between them. Before you could run arty and airstrike and throw them when ya wanted or needed them. This broke up the deathball meta formations and made the comp teams POed that thier GOD tactic could be countered. Hence it was QQ'ed to death forcing PGI/IGP to set up the system we have currently

Knockdown was in the game orignally, why was it removed simply put people didnt like falling down when they did something stupid, like drumming themselves off of buildings. This mechanic made people think and made them pilot more carefully. of corse it was exploited with jenners bum rushin atlases with the sole purpose of knocking it down. People will always figure out a way to exploit something if it gives them the upperhand.

so in a nut shell if everything was scaled correctly and implimented correctly droves of folks would quit the game cause they couldnt deal with a NON-C.O.D style game play.

[Alistair Winter]

Just as a tiny side note, while I also lament the way artillery & airstrike is implemented currently (I'd like to see scout mechs directing artillery and airstrikes repeateadly through a match), the whole thing always did stink of cheese because it cost 80,000 C-bills per match in a game where 80,000 C-bills per match is decidedly above average income. If artillery & airstrike was "bought" by stuff like command console or equipping BAP+TAG, for example, then it would be fine. But when C-bills was the main reason not to equip it, that was just horrible.

In regards to mechs vs tanks:

• The only reason tanks can't drive underwater is because they're not constructed to do that. There's no mechanical limitation in the concept of a tracked vehicle that implies it cannot go underwater, or function on a planet with no atmosphere, for example. If a mech can be constructed to do those things, then you probably have the technology to make a tank do those things.
  
• if you look at the terrain on Earth (not applicable to all planets, but most planets being fought over are obviously similar to Earth in order to be habitable) there's not a lot of terrain that is impossible for a tank to cross, yet possible for a mech to cross. A tank can go pretty much everywhere, and if you add the ability to go underwater, it's even better. It can't step over a crevasse. but those aren't very common terrain features anyway. It can't climb a sheer cliff, but neither can most mechs. In fact, if you travel anywhere in a 1000 kilometer diameter from where you live right now, I imagine it's pretty hard to find terrain where a tank cannot move, but a mech can.
  
• If you look at the maps in MWO, for example, there's a bunch of places where mechs are able to move, while they realistically shouldn't. When an Atlas momentarily places all its weight on one foot, that's 100 tons on a very tiny surface. A tank distributes its weight on a much larger surface, which allows it to stay on top of soft and unstable terrain (e.g. snow, mud, piles of rocks and rubble) without sinking too much. An Atlas putting its foot down on 10 feet of snow would most likely sink 10 feet instantly. And then moving forward would be a lot slower. A tank, on the other hand, is able to move fast on top of snow and ice, without necessarily sinking all the way down to the ground below. It's probably going to cross frozen rivers and lakers a lot faster than mechs, who are more likely to fall through the ice.

I say this as someone who's trained as tank crew, by the way. When I started training and saw what tanks could do, I was blown away by how mobile they are. Those things will move over (or through) almost anything. Of course, it does suck when their tracks come off. But I imagine that's not as big a problem in a thousand years from now

EDIT: The modified scaling in MWO goes both ways, I think. Some of the light and medium mechs are much smaller compared to heavy and assault mechs than according to TT manuals, or even compared to earlier Mechwarrior games. The Locust is supposed to be very tall and have thin legs, for example.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 04 April 2015 - 07:01 AM.

[Burktross]

The "Vestigial" Centurion left arm is the literal best part of your mech. It is a get out of jail free card, or in this case, "Don't get cored free"

[RedDragon]

Alistair Winter, on 04 April 2015 - 06:59 AM, said:

• The only reason tanks can't drive underwater is because they're not constructed to do that. There's no mechanical limitation in the concept of a tracked vehicle that implies it cannot go underwater, or function on a planet with no atmosphere, for example. If a mech can be constructed to do those things, then you probably have the technology to make a tank do those things.
  
• if you look at the terrain on Earth (not applicable to all planets, but most planets being fought over are obviously similar to Earth in order to be habitable) there's not a lot of terrain that is impossible for a tank to cross, yet possible for a mech to cross. A tank can go pretty much everywhere, and if you add the ability to go underwater, it's even better. It can't step over a crevasse. but those aren't very common terrain features anyway. It can't climb a sheer cliff, but neither can most mechs. In fact, if you travel anywhere in a 1000 kilometer diameter from where you live right now, I imagine it's pretty hard to find terrain where a tank cannot move, but a mech can.
  
• If you look at the maps in MWO, for example, there's a bunch of places where mechs are able to move, while they realistically shouldn't. When an Atlas momentarily places all its weight on one foot, that's 100 tons on a very tiny surface. A tank distributes its weight on a much larger surface, which allows it to stay on top of soft and unstable terrain (e.g. snow, mud, piles of rocks and rubble) without sinking too much. An Atlas putting its foot down on 10 feet of snow would most likely sink 10 feet instantly. And then moving forward would be a lot slower. A tank, on the other hand, is able to move fast on top of snow and ice, without necessarily sinking all the way down to the ground below. It's probably going to cross frozen rivers and lakers a lot faster than mechs, who are more likely to fall through the ice.

To be fair, if (and that's a big if) mechs could be constructed as depicted in BT, there would be a lot of situations where they would be viable. Especially if you consider the fact that "1000 kilometer diameter from where you live right now" is likely to be an urbanized, colonized patch of earth that is well mapped out. But it may look very differently on an uninhabited planet where you could encounter forests or stone formations that are just too narrow for a tank to navigate while a mech could get through sideways or above. I can't imagine a tank traversing this terrain for example:



Or this:




Also steep cliffs, both up and down. Correct me if I am wrong, but when a tank faces an obstacle that is too steep (say 90°) and higher than its tracks, it won't get over it, no matter what.
Additionally, there are very few scenarios in which a mech really would be "stuck". If a tank slides down a cliff and its tracks lose contact with the ground (i.e. the tank topples over to one side), there is not much you can do against it without aid.



A mech can fall or tumble down any slope, and no matter how it comes to rest, it will always be able to stand up again if it is not damaged too badly.

In short: If you are on an unmapped, uninhabited planet, you'd be far better off in a mech. Because once stuck in a tank, you "are" stuck. A mech could free itself from a lot more situations. Therefore, if you don't know what terrain you will be facing, a mech would be the better choice (again, "if" they functioned like depicted in BT).
But you are right, there are also obstacles a tank could clear more easily, like ice or sand.

[MechaBattler]

Molossian Dog, on 04 April 2015 - 05:00 AM, said:

-showing the clamz the middle finger (requires middle finger) to use as a club...ehrm...wait...strike that

[Molossian Dog]

Rude gesture animations are definately an aspect of the game that could be improved.

I mean we have the griefing horns already, so, why not go for it for real?

[Alistair Winter]

I do concede that if you're on a desolate planet covered by a whole lot of extremely difficult terrain with spiky rocks or crevasses, and you have only a single vehicle and no one else to help you get unstuck, then the mech is sometimes the better option, if you want to be able to go absolutely everywhere. If you want to cross the Grand Canyon or climb Mount Everest, the mech is better suited.

But the situations where the mech is more mobile than a tank are very unusual and very specific. How often do you need to cross the Grand Canyon to win a battle? How often are you sending your most valuable units alone and unsupported to cross difficult terrain? Losing a tank is no big deal, losing a mech in Battletech is a huge loss.

And for every situation where a mech is more mobile than a tank, there are so many more common situations (e.g. snow, mud, swamp) where a heavy mech will sink through the terrain and move forward at a glacial pace, while a tank will crawl over it with great speed. Needing to cross those sort of terrain types are more common.

There's no map in MWO where I'd rather have a 100 ton mech than a 100 ton tank, really. Even if you assume that they are equally fast and have the same firepower. Now if mechs could actually shoot around corners, crouch, kneel and lay prone, then it's a different story. That would be a big advantage in urban engagements. Even though the smaller surface of the tank does mean you probably have more armour per square feet.

[Molossian Dog]

Alistair.

Few tanks can be dropped from orbit.

More than once that is.

------------------------------------------------

Also the additional systems allowing them to work under high or low gravity, vacuum, poisoned atmospheres, below water and whatnot are technically possible, but so extremely resource intensive that the already apparent advantage (tons/combat power wise) of Mech vs conventionals becomes even more apparent. And then there is the lack of interstellar transport space, that a ) makes interstellar conquest in itself questionable and b ) prods commanders to cram units as effective as possible and as generalist as possible into their transport droppers.

Also in lore there are tons of conventional regiments accompaning each and every Mech regiment that take care of all the boring line unit duties. Players (here and in CBT) mostly prefer to play the numerically small "spec ops" "ranger" "paratrooper" or "tip of the spear" operations that Mechs are destined for, instead of the less glamorous, but far more common mundane battles.

I am not saying you are wrong. There is definately the rule of cool at work here (just check all the other strange Fasa-nomics) but there are a few straws of rationality to make suspension of disbelief easier.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 04 April 2015 - 08:22 AM.

[RedDragon]

Alistair Winter, on 04 April 2015 - 07:59 AM, said:

I do concede that if you're on a desolate planet covered by a whole lot of extremely difficult terrain with spiky rocks or crevasses, and you have only a single vehicle and no one else to help you get unstuck, then the mech is sometimes the better option, if you want to be able to go absolutely everywhere. If you want to cross the Grand Canyon or climb Mount Everest, the mech is better suited.

But the situations where the mech is more mobile than a tank are very unusual and very specific. How often do you need to cross the Grand Canyon to win a battle? How often are you sending your most valuable units alone and unsupported to cross difficult terrain? Losing a tank is no big deal, losing a mech in Battletech is a huge loss.

And for every situation where a mech is more mobile than a tank, there are so many more common situations (e.g. snow, mud, swamp) where a heavy mech will sink through the terrain and move forward at a glacial pace, while a tank will crawl over it with great speed. Needing to cross those sort of terrain types are more common.

There's no map in MWO where I'd rather have a 100 ton mech than a 100 ton tank, really. Even if you assume that they are equally fast and have the same firepower. Now if mechs could actually shoot around corners, crouch, kneel and lay prone, then it's a different story. That would be a big advantage in urban engagements. Even though the smaller surface of the tank does mean you probably have more armour per square feet.

You need to think on a bigger scale In modern warfare, if you can't reach something with tanks, you just send in infantry. It's no problem to react because you can have air support or other units available in a matter of hours.
But interstellar warfare? You pack your dropship full of tanks, reach your destination after weeks of traveling and then go like "Well, the enemy force hid inside a rock formation, no way our tanks can get in there - guess we have to turn around and go home."
I hope you are getting my point - if you don't know what terrain you will face, it will always be better to have mechs on hand than just tanks that would be useless in some situations.