22 replies to this topic

[bad arcade kitty]

>The Exe will easily be more durable than the Peacedove, due to being humanoid

i don't understand this reasoning

aren't timber and crow tanky because they are not humanoid

[FupDup]

bad arcade kitty, on 12 May 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

>The Exe will easily be more durable than the Peacedove, due to being humanoid

i don't understand this reasoning

aren't timber and crow tanky because they are not humanoid

Non-Humanoid Counterexamples: Catapult, Jenner, Adder, Dragon, Mad Dog...

Humanoid Counterexamples: Firestarter, Shadow Hawk, Griffin, Banshee, Atlas (contrary to common belief, it actually IS one of the toughest mechs out there)


The thing with humanoid mechs is that they're harder to screw up. The margin of error for messing up a flat-chested hitbox is somewhat low, whereas a torso that juts out far like a bullet can be messed up quite easily (i.e. Catapult).

Also, flat chests are easier to protect with shield arms due to being much thinner from the side view. Non-humanoid bodies have the potential to be durable when the stars align, but they can also fail quite often too.

Edited by FupDup, 13 May 2015 - 06:26 AM.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 13 May 2015 - 06:25 AM, said:

The thing with humanoid mechs is that they're harder to screw up. The margin of error for messing up a flat-chested hitbox is somewhat low, whereas a torso that juts out far like a bullet can be messed up quite easily (i.e. Catapult).

Also, flat chests are easier to protect with shield arms due to being much thinner from the side view. Non-humanoid bodies have the potential to be durable when the stars align, but they can also fail quite often too.

If this wasn't about mechs... the alternative interpretation would be amusing.