198 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

The thing is that it doesn't really matter.

The reality is that battlemechs are a mind-bogglingly stupid idea for a weapons platform. They have a huge front profile compared to a tank, making them easy to hit, and put tremendous pressure on the ground, making them useless on any terrain other than highly re-enforced concrete. The one advantage they would have - the ability to climb terrain - is not only not used in any Battletech based video game, but also is rather meaningless given the tremendous weight issues produced by the battlemech on its legs in the first place.

So, reality already kills the idea of effective battlemechs, regardless of theoretical energy output of fusion reactors and the mobility response of myomer.

More importantly, certain conventions are needed for a video game to FEEL correct, and having giant humanoid tanks move as fast and nimbly as a person simply feels and looks wrong. It doesn't matter if "it could be done, in theory" - it makes for odd and poor game play. This is similar to why space battles in video games generally have sound in them - impossible in space - or why other sacrifices of reality are made to make a game more enjoyable as well as more believable when compared to what people expect.

[Homeskilit]

As long the skeleton and joints can withstand the forces applied on them then mechs be as agile as a pilot wants them to be.

Does anyone know the material science behind EndoSteel? Nope.

Light and medium mechs falling down while turning would be a case a pilot error not mech failure.

[oldradagast]

Homeskilit, on 03 December 2015 - 07:07 PM, said:

As long the skeleton and joints can withstand the forces applied on them then mechs be as agile as a pilot wants them to be.

Does anyone know the material science behind EndoSteel? Nope.

Light and medium mechs falling down while turning would be a case a pilot error not mech failure.

Meaningless. You are making up values for fantasy hardware and then saying, "Because nobody knows the output of a fusion reactor, it is infinite, and because nobody knows the strength of endosteel, it is clearly strong and flexible enough to allow a mech to move like a human." That is made-up fantasy and personal opinion, not proof.

The most basic proof we have that mechs are NOT nimble like human is the need for frequent pilot checks - and they are not easy - to do practically anything more complicated than walking around and shooting. So, unless the average human is also regularly falling and crashing when doing anymore more complex than walking along, mechs are NOT as nimble as humans.

Finally, fantasy science aside, the mechs would still sink into the earth on all these various worlds on which they fight, unless now every planet in the galaxy is covered entirely with re-enforced concrete a few inches beneath the soil.

Edited by oldradagast, 03 December 2015 - 07:13 PM.

[sycocys]

I'm not a military buff, but I did a quick search and couldn't find any videos of an Abrams doing a full speed hard corner. I suspect that this is because that even due to its low center of gravity that heavy cannon mount on the top combined with the forces of physics as well as sinking your tracks into the dirt would flip it over at least 1 time.

[Death Proof]

Mechs in BT have always been described as lumbering behemoths, walking tanks, etc.

It was one of the things that separated the franchise from the anime "Gundam" versions. BT has a distinct WWII / Cold War vibe about it and always has. It's just set against a futuristic interstellar backdrop.

BT mechs were NEVER meant to be nimble, lithe fighting machines.

[Bishop Steiner]

Homeskilit, on 03 December 2015 - 07:07 PM, said:

As long the skeleton and joints can withstand the forces applied on them then mechs be as agile as a pilot wants them to be.

Does anyone know the material science behind EndoSteel? Nope.

Light and medium mechs falling down while turning would be a case a pilot error not mech failure.

lol... nothing to do with the ability of the skeleton to resist (though that would be one engineering hurdle).

It's the ability to counter and change momentum. Humanoid shapes and muscles don't magically counter that. You could have an unbreakable skeleton, and all you would accomplish by doing an NBA style plant and spin in a running locust is causing it to flip end over end because you can't change momentum, centrifugal force, the pendulum, effect, etc. You would literally need maneuvering thrusters on the upper reaches of the torso to counter the pendulum forces.

And the sheer amount of energy it would take to make a 20 meter tall "human" move at the same "speed" as a true human would tear the pilot apart if you could figure out how to harness it.

One of the few things Pacific Rim got right, even though they are way taller than a Battlemech? Is to have the equivalent of a "fast" punch, you would have to essentially strap jato rockets to the elbow (And even then...ever notice how when rockets launch, they usually start kind of slow? Yeah, that's cuz they have to counter Inertia). A mech punch would still be effective against other mechs, for the same reason a slow moving dump truck still can cause huge amounts of damage... force comes from Mass AND Velocity. The same force you think would allow a Mech to Kung Fu another mech into submission...if it was generating the force needed to beat another mech apart? Would tear itself apart in the process since it's made of the same material and structure as that on the receiving end.

Myomers or no, the basic science and engineering doesn't change.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 03 December 2015 - 07:19 PM.

[Sandpit]

oldradagast, on 03 December 2015 - 07:11 PM, said:

Meaningless. You are making up values for fantasy hardware and then saying, "Because nobody knows the output of a fusion reactor, it is infinite, and because nobody knows the strength of endosteel, it is clearly strong and flexible enough to allow a mech to move like a human." That is made-up fantasy and personal opinion, not proof.

The most basic proof we have that mechs are NOT nimble like human is the need for frequent pilot checks - and they are not easy - to do practically anything more complicated than walking around and shooting. So, unless the average human is also regularly falling and crashing when doing anymore more complex than walking along, mechs are NOT as nimble as humans.

Finally, fantasy science aside, the mechs would still sink into the earth on all these various worlds on which they fight, unless now every planet in the galaxy is covered entirely with re-enforced concrete a few inches beneath the soil.

House rules for campaigns I ran we accounted for that actually. Reduced speeds and PSRs.

[sycocys]

The real question here is: Why can't I German suplex Timberwolves?

[Bishop Steiner]

Sandpit, on 03 December 2015 - 07:16 PM, said:

House rules for campaigns I ran we accounted for that actually. Reduced speeds and PSRs.

and also one more reason aside from basic stability that many robot designs have had massive feet.... reduce the amount of the ground pressure from their foot print.

I would love to see Homebiscuits super nimble Gundam Ninja mech do a backflip and stick a landing of it's 50 tons on it's tiny ballerina feet... only to have the foot and leg sink 2 meters into the ground because , then snap at the knee from the residual forces.

[Sandpit]

Death Proof, on 03 December 2015 - 07:14 PM, said:

Mechs in BT have always been described as lumbering behemoths, walking tanks, etc.

It was one of the things that separated the franchise from the anime "Gundam" versions. BT has a distinct WWII / Cold War vibe about it and always has. It's just set against a futuristic interstellar backdrop.

BT mechs were NEVER meant to be nimble, lithe fighting machines.

Agreed the actual misconception is the OP's notion. Nowhere have mechs ever been described, portrayed, or shown as being "nimble"

Some light mechs were "nimble" in context of the rest of the units, but even they weren't "nimble" like what the OP is talking about

[Sjorpha]

If you look at the movement of very large animals, like elephants, and then realize that mechs are several times larger than an elephant, you see how assuming human agility isn't very realistic even with artificial muscles.

The larger an animal becomes the required support and strength required to move increases exponentially, not linearly, and so does the inertia from greater weight and mass. Even with unlimited power, you are limited by the strength of the materials in the machine, too fast movement and the mech would break apart from the force.

Also the BT lore DOES treat mechs as walking tanks with some extra humanoid abilities, not like big exoskeletons or anime style mechs.

Edited by Sjorpha, 03 December 2015 - 07:39 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Not sure where you got the idea of backflips but it was not from me. Nor the idea that they are ballerina gundums doing spin moves. Most of the moves shown in the videos are "cuts" where a player plants his feet to change his direction slightly.

You took that and turned it into full speed 90 degree turn with backflips and 360 degree spins...

The speed videos were to show how fast a human in peak condition can get up to full speed and that despite their size differences they are not that far apart acceleration wise. No an assault mech is not going to be as agile as a light mech, but their acceleration would be similar.

Edited by Homeskilit, 03 December 2015 - 07:43 PM.

[Davegt27]

Well I had another post all typed up then poof
Stupid tablet

I thought the game was mostly fine
To the OP we tried to tell people
But those that cry the most coming up with all kinds of bazaro argument's seems to be the people PGI listen to

Twitch shooter what, I am 55 half blind and the game does not seem twitchy to me

Also its not illogical to think that humanoids would not reproduce themselves in the form of battle Mechs
That's why its called science fiction
Think how would you make A ship born16" cannon highly mobile (OK some think they are not highly mobile)

If Mechs are not mobile beasts what would be the point, why even have myomer bundles
This is the 31st century

Another thing to think about is the game needs to be fun and playable,
That's what we had a fun game why screw it up

[Lynx7725]

In all my years dabbling in Battletech, I've never seen or read a Mech doing a flying jump kick against an opponent, in the style of Hong Kong action movies.

And to be very blunt and honest, if I want to play Front Mission I'd go and play Front Mission. I'm here for the stompy robots, not for backflipping acrobatic dancing machines.

[Sandpit]

Davegt27, on 03 December 2015 - 07:57 PM, said:

Well I had another post all typed up then poof
Stupid tablet

I thought the game was mostly fine
To the OP we tried to tell people
But those that cry the most coming up with all kinds of bazaro argument's seems to be the people PGI listen to

Twitch shooter what, I am 55 half blind and the game does not seem twitchy to me

Also its not illogical to think that humanoids would not reproduce themselves in the form of battle Mechs
That's why its called science fiction
Think how would you make A ship born16" cannon highly mobile (OK some think they are not highly mobile)

If Mechs are not mobile beasts what would be the point, why even have myomer bundles
This is the 31st century

Another thing to think about is the game needs to be fun and playable,
That's what we had a fun game why screw it up

It isn't illogical to think that, it's still not what the game, the rules, the mechs, the lore, the history, of the entire game MWO and beyond.

If you want mechs that move like that I hear Hawken does cool power slides and crazy stuff, that might actually be more fun for those types of players, but it isn't MWO, it's not Btech, and it's not what this game (Btech or otherwise) has ever been represented as.

[AnimeFreak40K]

Homeskilit, on 03 December 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Where are people getting the idea that a Battlemech is a big, slow, lumbering machine?

Maybe, perhaps every bit of lore that I have heard/read about? That would be my first guess at any rate.

Homeskilit, on 03 December 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Mechs are not skyscrapers. Mechs are (according to sarna) 10-20 meters (30-60 feet) which is not that big (the actual size of Battlemechs is questionable as multiple sources list them at difference sizes).

Whether or not a mech is considered ‘skyscraper sized’ depends on what your definition of a skyscraper is. A story is generally considered to be about 10 feet (or about 3 meters). This means that mechs are going to be anywhere between 3-6 stories tall, which puts them on par with many suburban-type office buildings (at least where I’m at. Yes, there are plenty that are taller, but also a lot don’t go above 5 or 6 floors either).

Homeskilit, on 03 December 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

an M1 Abrams tank also weighs in at 60 tons.

The Abrams is closer to 70 tons, for one. More if you consider a full loadout, crew, their gear and whatever other mission-related gear that gets attached (mine rollers/mine plow, for example).

Homeskilit, on 03 December 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Top Speed: An Abrams tops out at 45 mph (72 kph) while a 60 ton Battlemech can top out anywhere from 64 kph to 86 kph (they can be faster or slower depending on the engine used). [*]Acceleration: An Abrams tank takes about 30 seconds to reach top speed.

You do realize that 45mph isn’t all that fast, right? At least when you consider how people tend to drive in a highway, freeway or interstate.

Homeskilit, on 03 December 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

[stuff about trying to apply real-world logic and physics into a world centered around giant stompy robots]

No, it’s still pretty arbitrary. It’s been shown by any number of sources why 30-60 foot tall giant robots wouldn’t work, not the least of which is this thing called physics. I find it hard as hell to believe that anything in the weight-range of a Main Battle Tank is so frikkin’ huge. Anything approaching the size of even a light mech should weigh 40-50 tons.

Strum Wealh, on 03 December 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

[Corrected info about size of mechs in Battletech

Okay, these revised heights actually make a lot more sense. However, mechs still seem a bit on the light side to me, but at least the different weights and such can be explained by superior superlight materials or whatever.

Homeskilit, on 03 December 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

There is nothing keeping a Battlemech from performing like a human would other than people's perception of what a Battlemech is.

Okay, this is just silly. If you even look at the mechs both in-game and in the artwork, you should readily see that most (if not all) mechs don’t have anywhere near the number of joints that a human does and their general construction, design and layout doesn’t even allow for most of the joints to have anywhere near the range of motion that the human body does.
I want you to suit yourself up such that you are physically hindered in the way that a mech is and try to do the things you regularly try to do. Get back to me and let me know how that goes, m’kay?

oldradagast, on 03 December 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:

More importantly, certain conventions are needed for a video game to FEEL correct, and having giant humanoid tanks move as fast and nimbly as a person simply feels and looks wrong. It doesn't matter if "it could be done, in theory" - it makes for odd and poor game play.

I’m going to have to disagree with you in a MAJOR way here. There are several games that have giant robots that are piloted from a First Person or Third Person view that are exceptionally nimble. Off the top of my head there is: Mobile Suit Gundam: Char’s Counterattack and Mobile Suit Gundam: Encounters in Space, Robotech: Battlecry and Zone of the Enders. I own or have played these titles and the mecha in those games are about the same size (if not larger) as the mechs in BattleTech/MechWarrior and they look, feel, and play just fine.

sycocys, on 03 December 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

I'm not a military buff, but I did a quick search and couldn't find any videos of an Abrams doing a full speed hard corner. I suspect that this is because that even due to its low center of gravity that heavy cannon mount on the top combined with the forces of physics as well as sinking your tracks into the dirt would flip it over at least 1 time.

And you won’t, because that doesn’t happen unless the driver wants to get in some SERIOUS ****. To be clear, I’m not a military buff either, but I did serve in the US Army for 4 years as a tanker (specifically on the M1A1).

The reason why you’re not going to see videos of an Abrams taking a hard corner at full speed (even though it technically can) is because doing so could cause some serious damage to the track, roadwheels and/or drive sprocket(s)…though most likely you will end up throwing track. Which, just to let you know sucks ALL KINDS OF ASS when it happens. Seriously, the one thing tankers hate more than breaking track for maintenance is to deal with thrown track for *ANY* reason.

That said, the Abrams sits too low to flip over easily and the only factor that weight has to do with anything is how the track will react to the rest of the tank.

On a side note, the entirety (that is the breach, mounting and barrel) of the main gun is ‘only’ about 5 tons. No, 5 tons isn’t anything to sneeze at, but when the overall vehicle clocks in at close to 70, it’s not really all that much.

[Sandpit]

AnimeFreak40K, on 03 December 2015 - 08:36 PM, said:

Maybe, perhaps every bit of lore that I have heard/read about? That would be my first guess at any rate.



Whether or not a mech is considered ‘skyscraper sized’ depends on what your definition of a skyscraper is. A story is generally considered to be about 10 feet (or about 3 meters). This means that mechs are going to be anywhere between 3-6 stories tall, which puts them on par with many suburban-type office buildings (at least where I’m at. Yes, there are plenty that are taller, but also a lot don’t go above 5 or 6 floors either).



The Abrams is closer to 70 tons, for one. More if you consider a full loadout, crew, their gear and whatever other mission-related gear that gets attached (mine rollers/mine plow, for example).



You do realize that 45mph isn’t all that fast, right? At least when you consider how people tend to drive in a highway, freeway or interstate.



No, it’s still pretty arbitrary. It’s been shown by any number of sources why 30-60 foot tall giant robots wouldn’t work, not the least of which is this thing called physics. I find it hard as hell to believe that anything in the weight-range of a Main Battle Tank is so frikkin’ huge. Anything approaching the size of even a light mech should weigh 40-50 tons.



Okay, these revised heights actually make a lot more sense. However, mechs still seem a bit on the light side to me, but at least the different weights and such can be explained by superior superlight materials or whatever.



Okay, this is just silly. If you even look at the mechs both in-game and in the artwork, you should readily see that most (if not all) mechs don’t have anywhere near the number of joints that a human does and their general construction, design and layout doesn’t even allow for most of the joints to have anywhere near the range of motion that the human body does.
I want you to suit yourself up such that you are physically hindered in the way that a mech is and try to do the things you regularly try to do. Get back to me and let me know how that goes, m’kay?



I’m going to have to disagree with you in a MAJOR way here. There are several games that have giant robots that are piloted from a First Person or Third Person view that are exceptionally nimble. Off the top of my head there is: Mobile Suit Gundam: Char’s Counterattack and Mobile Suit Gundam: Encounters in Space, Robotech: Battlecry and Zone of the Enders. I own or have played these titles and the mecha in those games are about the same size (if not larger) as the mechs in BattleTech/MechWarrior and they look, feel, and play just fine.



And you won’t, because that doesn’t happen unless the driver wants to get in some SERIOUS ****. To be clear, I’m not a military buff either, but I did serve in the US Army for 4 years as a tanker (specifically on the M1A1).

The reason why you’re not going to see videos of an Abrams taking a hard corner at full speed (even though it technically can) is because doing so could cause some serious damage to the track, roadwheels and/or drive sprocket(s)…though most likely you will end up throwing track. Which, just to let you know sucks ALL KINDS OF ASS when it happens. Seriously, the one thing tankers hate more than breaking track for maintenance is to deal with thrown track for *ANY* reason.

That said, the Abrams sits too low to flip over easily and the only factor that weight has to do with anything is how the track will react to the rest of the tank.

On a side note, the entirety (that is the breach, mounting and barrel) of the main gun is ‘only’ about 5 tons. No, 5 tons isn’t anything to sneeze at, but when the overall vehicle clocks in at close to 70, it’s not really all that much.

psst
maybe you've missed all the posts regarding "other games do this and that"
This isn't those games
This wasn't advertised to be like that
This isn't supposed to be like that
This isn't designed to be like that
This isn't build to be like that
The rules aren't designed to support that
The players weren't sold that type of game play

If you want the game play that those other games give you, I'd suggest playing them when you're in the mode for that style instead of asking for a completely different game that has NEVER remotely almost kinda sorta or anything else implied that it will play ANYthing like that.

[AnimeFreak40K]

Sandpit, on 03 December 2015 - 08:46 PM, said:

psst maybe you've missed all the posts regarding "other games do this and that" This isn't those games This wasn't advertised to be like that This isn't supposed to be like that This isn't designed to be like that This isn't build to be like that The rules aren't designed to support that The players weren't sold that type of game play If you want the game play that those other games give you, I'd suggest playing them when you're in the mode for that style instead of asking for a completely different game that has NEVER remotely almost kinda sorta or anything else implied that it will play ANYthing like that.

psst - maybe you missed the fact that I was directly replying to someone who suggested that giant robots should not and/or cannot move a certain way due to it making for odd and poor gameplay.

If the statement I was replying to had implied that it was talking specifically about MechWarrior Online, I wouldn't have said anything. However, it was made without any such preceding statements so I took that to mean *all* games that have "giant human tanks move as fast and nimbly as a person simply feels and looks wrong." and this is simply not true.

To be clear, I am very well aware of what MWO is and what it isn't and I am here because I enjoy it for what it is...and I have been doing so for almost 3 years now.

[Davegt27]

You have a good fun game

Say 2014 time frame but instead of being thankfull for the game you spend all your time trying to change it
Then when people say anything you tell them to go find a new game

The game seemed fine to me
I never herd anyone discribe the game as a twitch shooter game 6 months ago
So I guess MWO was a twitch shooter for a several years then the devs some how realized there mistake

Crazy

Edited by Davegt27, 03 December 2015 - 09:24 PM.

[Revis Volek]

Homeskilit, on 03 December 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

I addressed this. A fusion reactor would provide near infinite power. The weight is a not an issue but the stress on its joints and skeletal structure is. Since Triple Strength Myomers do not tear mechs apart, there is no reason to assume normal myomers would either. Therefore the skeleton is not a problem and the myomers will provide mechs with the same range of motions as a human. If anything i would expect there to be fail safes to slow myomers down.

There is nothing keeping a Battlemech from performing like a human would other than people's perception of what a Battlemech is.

Why wouldn't the weight be an issue...

Please just explain that to me....The weight and g's the pilot is dealing with are very extreme. Its not just 60 tons rolling around on the ground like a tank. ITS A WALKING TANK, a 60 ton rigid structure that in now way is meant to be a Gundam or Anime like in its movements.



They are not Ninjas, they are walking tanks.

AnimeFreak40K, on 03 December 2015 - 09:14 PM, said:

psst - maybe you missed the fact that I was directly replying to someone who suggested that giant robots should not and/or cannot move a certain way due to it making for odd and poor gameplay.

If the statement I was replying to had implied that it was talking specifically about MechWarrior Online, I wouldn't have said anything. However, it was made without any such preceding statements so I took that to mean *all* games that have "giant human tanks move as fast and nimbly as a person simply feels and looks wrong." and this is simply not true.

To be clear, I am very well aware of what MWO is and what it isn't and I am here because I enjoy it for what it is...and I have been doing so for almost 3 years now.

This is the Mechwarrior online General Discussion forum...

All other topics of discussion dont belong here. So its safe to assume from now on if you are here in this Forum its about MWO or some how related. Im not saying that to be rude, im just saying. There is nothing else really discussed here lol.

This isnt Gundam tho, this isnt Xenoblades or any other anime. Its battletech and THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO MOVE LIKE THAT. Not to mention the G's you would feel as the pilot inside some mecha during those crazy stunts i see on these anime shows would turn your brain to mashed peas.

Edited by DarthRevis, 03 December 2015 - 10:01 PM.