

Man Vs Chicken: Mech Handeling
#1
Posted 24 January 2016 - 12:01 PM
#2
Posted 24 January 2016 - 12:02 PM
It sounds like it would throw another wrench in the system in terms of trying to balance everything, when there are already plenty of wrenches lodged within...
#3
Posted 24 January 2016 - 12:11 PM
LordNothing, on 24 January 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:
Digitigrade stance, which is not what "chicken walkers" have but what the hind legs of your cat or dog have, is more agile in general. Plantigrade, which is what you and I have, is better for load-bearing. "Chicken walkers" are just plantigrade in reverse...so...clumsy. They should have a very hard time climbing.
Honestly, any 'Mech that was a "chicken walker" should have been converted to digitigrade by PGI.
#4
Posted 24 January 2016 - 12:12 PM
FupDup, on 24 January 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:
It sounds like it would throw another wrench in the system in terms of trying to balance everything, when there are already plenty of wrenches lodged within...
the whole game is made out of wrenches. pgi seems to have bit off more than they can chew and the whole thing just turned into a big kludge.
still i think its easier to balance a game after all the features are in. instead of the other way around when you constantly have to refactor everything as new stuff is added. they should just write a balance bot to analyse stats every week and generate a balance patch at the end of every week (see my other vs thread). im tired of poor balance being used as an excuse to halt features that would make this game feel like it deserves the name mechwarrior.
#5
Posted 24 January 2016 - 12:13 PM
LordNothing, on 24 January 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:
I recall the same thing.
I would love if that was the case, but it's not.
It's probably very low priority now, but such a difference would be useful in the future to differentiate mechs a bit more from each other. Specially when you have several different chassis that have the same tonnage and similar hardpoints
#6
Posted 24 January 2016 - 12:14 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 24 January 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:
While that makes sense realistically, it would've changed the appearance of dozens of 'mechs which we love in the BattleTech universe.
#7
Posted 24 January 2016 - 12:16 PM
TELEFORCE, on 24 January 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:
While that makes sense realistically, it would've changed the appearance of dozens of 'mechs which we love in the BattleTech universe.
But not radically. It's the same general profile with a short, extra kink thrown in. You could have even placed it high up, near the torso, so that the thigh portion is less obvious.
#8
Posted 24 January 2016 - 12:37 PM
#10
Posted 24 January 2016 - 03:58 PM
Red Shrike, on 24 January 2016 - 12:50 PM, said:
Well technically the Stalker doesn't have reversed legs. It isn't until the Stalker II that it gets "chicken" legs. Personally I much prefer MWO's design.
Stalker

Stalker II

Edited by Troutmonkey, 24 January 2016 - 03:59 PM.
#11
Posted 24 January 2016 - 04:41 PM
http://mwomercs.com/...-with-pictures/
#12
Posted 24 January 2016 - 04:46 PM
Or whatever- but the different designs should have a +/- of some sort.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users