73 replies to this topic

[Garfuncle]

Russ's comment about quad mechs is a lot like Blizzard's comments regarding legacy servers. It's not a good business mentality. If a consumer wants something, is vocal enough saying that they will gladly pay for it, then it's in the company's best interest to at least look into providing that product to a potential customer. Shutting down all discussion, or being outright derisive towards the topic, only serves to alienate the consumer who will lose faith in the company and interest in its products.

So PGI please, listen to your customer base with a more open mind.

Edited by Garfuncle, 02 July 2016 - 01:50 PM.

[Squirg]

Should tweet spam Russ if you want anything done, devs don't read the forums.

[Mcgral18]

In this case, it just doesn't work with the current game layout.

Animations, mechanics, they don't allow for 4 legs to be used easily



Possible, I'm sure...but so is removing the MG CoF

[Appogee]

Quad Mechs would be hugely uncompetitive - huge hitboxes.

And how many players actually want them... a half dozen at best?

It's well past time you let the matter drop and find something more useful to ask for.

How about you ask for VTOLs... the game engine can handle them, they'd have a role to play on the size of maps we're playing, and MW:LL showed how fun they can be.

Edited by Appogee, 02 July 2016 - 02:00 PM.

[Davers]

I think Russ' opinion is based in the fact that they would have to completely rewrite the code for how mechs work to implement quads. Easier to just disparage them so no one wants them. Kind of like how he did with LAMs.

[Tarogato]

I want quads. A LOT.

... as long as PGI doesn't have to divert any development resources that aren't already dedicated to releasing mechs. Because seriously... this game is reaching the end if they don't get their аsses in gear.

[Commander A9]

I'm a bit on the fence about this...

The existing map layout would make this kind of weapon a big fat slow easy target. It'd get stuck, alot, and its legs flying in mid-air on hillsides would be...weird...

That and I'm sure a couple Atlas mechs or Warhawks could do the job just as well.

For the record, what you're seeing is the Mammoth Mk. II Heavy Battle Mechanized Walker from Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun. Compared to other Battle Mechanized Walkers, this is roughly 60 feet tall (about as tall as an Atlas) with twin double-barrelled railguns (gauss rifles), 2 SAM launchers (which could double as LRM10s), and a Vulcan Cannon turret (a Heavy Machine Gun or AC2 at most). It can also repair itself to 50% armor index through armor plate realignment.

[Mole]

We've been begging for PGI to listen to us since this game was in its infancy. They have not. Russ has even gone so far as to state that he doesn't care about player input. I don't think they will start listening now. Sorry.

[627]

[Johnny Z]

I get a laugh out of the "Circus mechs" comment. Funny stuff.

Edited by Johnny Z, 02 July 2016 - 04:10 PM.

[CanadianCyrus]

Ehhh, I don't want to buy deathsticks, I want to go home and rethink my life.

[Dr Mlem]

I think it would be really cool to play, until people realize that it has gigantic hitboxes with 4 legs.

But people have played mechs for worse reasons I guess. Don't mind if its in or not.

Edited by Lazy Badger, 02 July 2016 - 04:21 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Davers, on 02 July 2016 - 03:03 PM, said:

I think Russ' opinion is based in the fact that they would have to completely rewrite the code for how mechs work to implement quads. Easier to just disparage them so no one wants them. Kind of like how he did with LAMs.

LAMs wouldn't work well. Even quad mechs would have to be something entirely different as to whats in game now. Multi player and really tough, as well as very limited to where they could go.

[IdolElite]

What's the advantage of quads over your standard mech?

[Johnny Z]

IdolElite, on 02 July 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

What's the advantage of quads over your standard mech?

From what I have read on these forums. None. That's why they would have to be entirely different as to whats in game already.

[Tarogato]

Commander A9, on 02 July 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

It'd get stuck, alot, and its legs flying in mid-air on hillsides would be...weird...

Shouldn't really get stuck any more than a KGC or MAD. Say what you will, but the movement vs environment code is pretty robust in MWO (we only tend to get bugs when it comes to jumpjets and falling down steep angles with tight asset boundaries)

Also, the legs wouldn't fly around in mid-air on hillsides. PGI is reintroducing inverse kinematics soon, which is the feature that allows for mechs to align their feet to terrain.

[Vashramire]

Yes, why not throw a wrench into the system to upset the balance issues further if they could even get them working in the first place. Quads are such a bad idea it's not even funny.

[Davers]

Johnny Z, on 02 July 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

From what I have read on these forums. None. That's why they would have to be entirely different as to whats in game already.

Using pre-existing MWO mechanics, you would have mechs with big shielding legs that wouldn't fall off and would provide damage transfer protection to side torsos. You could only get good torso angles from above, and most likely have to destroy all 4 legs to easily kill them. Plus they would have "strafe movement".

Not saying they would be great (horrible firing arcs for example) but they would be different. And in a game where everyone keeps asking for terrible mechs anyway ,I don't see why these mechs get such hate.

PS- I'm not a fan of them myself (hate em in TT) I just don't see why people wouldn't want more mech variety.

[Tarogato]

IdolElite, on 02 July 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

What's the advantage of quads over your standard mech?

- strafing
- some of them have extraordinarily good hill peaking
- some of them could be modelled to spread damage very well (legs to intercept some torso damage on some, very narrow front profiles on others)
- cool factor
- PGI could elect to give them turrets (even 360° rotation), which isn't canon but available in certain TT rulesets
- harder to leg (what happens when you lose one single leg is up to PGI - according to TT rules, I believe a quad actually retained all of its speed (or maybe it was only reduced by 25%) after losing a single leg, but could no longer side-strafe. So imagine the pain of legging a 140kph Tarantula only to have it reduced to 100kph. So while quads have four legs (legs generally have more structure and armour than arms to), you might not even have to fully armour them. Maybe I should theorycraft some builds.

[Ted Wayz]

Sometimes when people can't do something they play it off like it is a joke. Be better if they were just honest and say it is something way out of their league.

Guess I will never see the Scorpion LAM in MWO.