38 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Just found this: in the BattleTech Forums


Its a commission work by Shimmering Sword.... 70t Mech.

[Raso]

Anjian, on 02 June 2016 - 03:19 AM, said:

When we used to play Chromehounds, the level of customization meant you literally build mechs from scratch using an assortment of parts. Long ago, from the crucible test of battle we have determined the optimal fighting form.

The design also takes one step further --- we put the weapons right in front of the torso, making torso hits impossible without destroying through the weapons first.

There was also the occasional periscope sniper with a tiny cockpit along the lower body and a few sniper cannons on a series of arms. In MWO that would be ideal since recoil isn't a thing (assuming you could get a gun camera)

Small skittering legs, low hanging cockpit and a set of 5 energy mounts at the end of a spindly arm that's almost as tall as an Atlas with a special quirk that gives it a built-in "advanced zoom" module that zooms from the gun arms. The highest level of cheese imaginable.

Bonus points if the toggle missile door key also cause the periscopic arm to extend and retract up and down like a telescope so you don't have to actually move to hill hump.

[Moldur]

Basically, a tank turret on two legs (since it has to be a mech.) The arms should hold no weapons and just be giant plates that shield the entire profile. The center torso should be inlayed in the side torso slightly as well, so as to shield even more.

We kind of see this with the marauder ST already. The way MWO handles damage makes it such that after an ST is blown out, the ST is still really good at taking side hits (the marauder ST is all sides anyway.) This transfers half damage to the CT AND spreads it between the front and back. A 30 damage alpha to the side of a destroyed ST does 15 damage split in 7.5 on the front and 7.5 on the back.

[Anjian]

Raso, on 02 June 2016 - 04:37 AM, said:

There was also the occasional periscope sniper with a tiny cockpit along the lower body and a few sniper cannons on a series of arms. In MWO that would be ideal since recoil isn't a thing (assuming you could get a gun camera)

Small skittering legs, low hanging cockpit and a set of 5 energy mounts at the end of a spindly arm that's almost as tall as an Atlas with a special quirk that gives it a built-in "advanced zoom" module that zooms from the gun arms. The highest level of cheese imaginable.

Bonus points if the toggle missile door key also cause the periscopic arm to extend and retract up and down like a telescope so you don't have to actually move to hill hump.

I remember some Japanese player made a design that is so low slung, "creature" is a better word for it. But damn it was pretty hard to hit on matches.

When I remember starting the game, everyone was a bit experimental, even mimicking Battletech designs like the Mad Cat. But they proved to be worthless, and soon pretty much replaced by "gun-raptors".

Moldur, on 02 June 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

Basically, a tank turret on two legs (since it has to be a mech.) The arms should hold no weapons and just be giant plates that shield the entire profile. The center torso should be inlayed in the side torso slightly as well, so as to shield even more.

We kind of see this with the marauder ST already. The way MWO handles damage makes it such that after an ST is blown out, the ST is still really good at taking side hits (the marauder ST is all sides anyway.) This transfers half damage to the CT AND spreads it between the front and back. A 30 damage alpha to the side of a destroyed ST does 15 damage split in 7.5 on the front and 7.5 on the back.

That's also a design I worked out in Chromehounds. With cannons dominating the front and covering the torso, we hang protective plates on the side. The side plates enhances the "ostrich" look of the mechs.

[Anjian]

If you are applying the physics of stability, weight and balance, heavy weapons on low slung arms have a surprising purpose --- they keep the center of gravity low and prevent the mech from toppling over from recoil. If you put big guns over the shoulders, bang, the mech will be on its back if you fire it from an upright position even with gyrostabilization. The proper way for a mech or humanoid form to fire an oversized weapon on its should would be to bend and kneel on its right knee, left foot forward, creating a stable base.

But of course, lasers absolutely have no recoil and I don't expect them to be heavy so you can slap them on the shoulders. Its the guns and the missiles that are the problem.

If armor deflection mechanics are present, like you see in WoT, the ideal mech form would be the Stalker. In fact, I think the Stalker would be the only acceptable one.

[Paigan]

Alistair Winter, on 01 June 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

[...]
What's the ideal mech shape, assuming hardpoints are where you want them to be?

This is actually a good question.
Imagine if Mechs were designed like actual war machines, brushed for efficiency, instead of some cheesy romantic toy-robots like they are in Batteltech.

Consider some Herc (="Mech") Designs from Earthsiege 2.
Don't mock the graphics, I know they are old and suck. It's an old game.
I mean the shapes.

Like this, for example:


- Compact Torso
- Weapons mounted tightly and as high as possible. Basically anything below the cockpit is moronic.

As far as arms are concearned: Arms are moronic, too. Instead of spending 20 tons for having useless arms that bring you nothing but unacceptably low weapon positions, rather spend the 20 tons directly on more armor and more systems/weapons.
Or in terms of BT with its crazy armor rules etc: Make big true "shield arms", like the cicada has.

The Shadow Cat comes VERY close to this design.
It might have tonnage and hitbox issues, but shape-wise, it's pretty reasonable:

Edited by Paigan, 03 June 2016 - 03:30 AM.

[Anjian]

You are correct about the arms. No arms, less weight, or saved weight that can be better put into armor or more weapons.

I would think the best ingame designs in terms of potential combat realism are:

Locust
Shadowcat
Cauldron Born (without arms)
Marauder
Stalker
Catapult
Mad Dog
Crab
King Crab
Maybe the Timberwolf but it has too many shot traps in the design.

My choices also assume physical armor deflection, which means that angled surfaces not only increases the effective thickness of the armor, but also increases ricochet chances.

One metaphor would be like an Apache helicopter without rotors but on legs.

Edited by Anjian, 03 June 2016 - 07:34 PM.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Doesn't hitboxes differ from the actual geometry? So wouldn't the most borked hitboxes be the best ideal thing to seek out? BY borked I mean not reg damage when you shoot the geometry.

[Leone]

Honestly, I just wanna be able to slap srm packs to my legs. Humanoid mech layout I think, for hit boxes, but for hardpoints?

Yeah, I want my knee missiles.

~Leone.

[Corrado]

speaking about geometry, imo there are two types:

the first, with high mounts, dominate the peek/crest trades (stalker, jager, rifleman, blackjack, shadowcat, hunchie-IIC, etc)

the second, with small ST CT hitboxes and shielding arms, dominate the brawling tanking fights (executioner, marauder, shadowhawk, griffin, black knight)

both are good at kind of gameplay.

then there are the bad geometry mechs, that can't do none of the above (dwf, warhawk, cataphract, vindi, battlemaster, dragon, loki, nova, etc)

bad geometry mechs should be balanced by quirks and good ones shouldnt have any. but heh...

[JC Daxion]

you know man.. i really dig you....


but WTF... these kinda Q;s are nothing but power gamer crap... (timber C, with a pair of pulses, 3 Shoulder mount ML's and a coulple of flamers.= FUN!

[Ryllen Kriel]

As others have said:

1.) Compact shape.
2.) High mounted weapons.
3.) Decent leg armour per leg size ratio.

In shorter terms "Anything that isn't a Vindicator."

[Bishop Steiner]

Alistair Winter, on 01 June 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

I've been playing this game for a while now. I still don't understand what is the best mech geometry.

If you were to build the ideal mech, what would it look like? I imagine there might be different answers for different weight classes and different roles (e.g. brawlers vs snipers), but maybe not. Maybe it's the same answer for every weight class and role.

• Are chicken legs better than humanoid legs? (e.g. Cataphract vs Black Knight)
  
• Is a flat torso better than tube-shaped torso? (e.g. Firestarter vs Jenner)
  
• Are humanoid arms better than weapon-arms? (e.g. Marauder vs Jagermech)

Or are there just too many variables to speak in generalities? Maybe the size of the arms influences what kind of torso shape is ideal, or maybe the hardpoint location in the torso determines what kind of arms are ideal, etc? Is it different for Clan mechs compared to IS mechs, due to Clan XLs? Obviously big arms are a problem if they contain all your weapons (e.g. Mist Lynx, Nova, etc)


I'm just looking at mechs like the Viper, the Cyclops and the Night Gyr and I'm still not sure I fully understand whether they have ideal mech geometry. I understand that high cockpits and high weapon mounts are good. I think you want as many hardpoints in the torso as possible. Even brawlers do well without weapons in the arms.

What's the ideal mech shape, assuming hardpoints are where you want them to be?

I'd say Firestarter or Centurion is pretty Ideal, though if you can hunch the head between the shoulders, even better.

Flat torsos means that they are harder to hit from the sides. Having big ape hanger humanoid arms means they soak damage, and further protect those STs.

You always want as little CT area as possible, since lose the CT, lose the mech, period.

The Legs, those IDK. Chicken Legs crouch more which has advantages, being less visible leg surface from the front, but more, from the side.

Big thing is ALL mechs are easy to hit. How well that mech is able to twist and spread is what determines it's overall success, which is why mechs liek the FS9, CN9 and BNC have been so good at taking damage. (SHD, too, and used to be the VTR, but ever since the nerf an unnerf still feel like it's missing something in that regard)

Even having weapons in those massive arms... hey, you lose the ST you lose the arm with it anyhow (and possibly more).

Karl Streiger, on 02 June 2016 - 04:04 AM, said:

Just found this: in the BattleTech Forums


Its a commission work by Shimmering Sword.... 70t Mech.

needs way bulkier shoulder guards to be ideal, tbh.

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 June 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

I'd say Firestarter or Centurion is pretty Ideal, though if you can hunch the head between the shoulders, even better.

Flat torsos means that they are harder to hit from the sides. Having big ape hanger humanoid arms means they soak damage, and further protect those STs.

You always want as little CT area as possible, since lose the CT, lose the mech, period.

Not true.

You really want all three torso segments to be the same size when viewed from the front, and you want all three to be narrow in width that way you can more easily redirect damage to any of them. This is the secret to the durability of 'Mechs like the Storm Crow, Firestarter, Arctic Cheetah, Wolf Hound, Catapult (size notwithstanding), Marauder, etc. If what you said were true, then the Awesome would be one of the best 'Mechs in the game at spreading damage which we all know is not the case.

To compare, look at the Black Knight. The 'Mech is about as deep as it is wide and it has tall, narrow torso boxes. It spreads damage better than almost any other 'Mech in its class. Now look at the Orion or Dragon. Big, huge STs that make them easy to side-core. Even the Warhammer, due to its proliferation, is well-known to be ST-squishy and they go down fast. What keeps them viable is their use case as dakka overwatch, which also keeps them more out of the line of fire and therefore not as hit-box imperative.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 June 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Not true.

You really want all three torso segments to be the same size when viewed from the front, and you want all three to be narrow in width that way you can more easily redirect damage to any of them. This is the secret to the durability of 'Mechs like the Storm Crow, Firestarter, Arctic Cheetah, Wolf Hound, Catapult (size notwithstanding), Marauder, etc. If what you said were true, then the Awesome would be one of the best 'Mechs in the game at spreading damage which we all know is not the case.

To compare, look at the Black Knight. The 'Mech is about as deep as it is wide and it has tall, narrow torso boxes. It spreads damage better than almost any other 'Mech in its class. Now look at the Orion or Dragon. Big, huge STs that make them easy to side-core. Even the Warhammer, due to its proliferation, is well-known to be ST-squishy and they go down fast. What keeps them viable is their use case as dakka overwatch, which also keeps them more out of the line of fire and therefore not as hit-box imperative.

no, the key is you want all the torsos as narrow as possible. But unless you still want the CT narrowest of all, since center mass is the most natural target to begin with. Large CT is ALWAYS kiss of death. Just as massive arms are always a good thing (protection wise)

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 June 2016 - 10:41 AM, said:

no, the key is you want all the torsos as narrow as possible.

That's...what what I said.

Quote

But unless you still want the CT narrowest of all, since center mass is the most natural target to begin with. Large CT is ALWAYS kiss of death. Just as massive arms are always a good thing (protection wise)

Large CT is bad. Small CT with large STs is also bad. There is no 'Mech that favors either torso component and is actually good unless it got quirked to high heaven (even then, I don't think there are any), only those with relative sameness across all three are good. The most durable 'Mechs have all of three of them extremely narrow, and I listed many of them above.

You are backtracking on your previous post and essentially reinforcing my statements.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 04 June 2016 - 10:46 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 June 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

That's...what what I said.



Large CT is bad. Small CT with large STs is also bad. There is no 'Mech that favors either torso component and is actually good unless it got quirked to high heaven (even then, I don't think there are any), only those with relative sameness across all three are good. The most durable 'Mechs have all of three of them extremely narrow, and I listed many of them above.

You are backtracking on your previous post and essentially reinforcing my statements.

No, i didn't. You do want smaller narrow torsos. But smaller CT. Nothing back tracked at all.

[Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky]

I would like a really thin torso, with arms that have arm shoulders that go above the head of the mech... And i want that arm so long that it clips through the floor.

The arms need to be wide enough to fully obscure any torsos.

Also the side torsos need to have high mounts, high enough to field 4 energy weapons on each of the side torsos. And 2 energy mounts in the center that are higher the the cockpit!

Also the rear torsos should be so small that most srm clusters will hit front armor when shot behind from behind, infact make it so small, that only perfectly aimed guass rifle shots can hit the rear armor points.

Also make the arm energy weapons mounted ontop of the shoulders.

This mech should be an inner sphere 75 ton mech.

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 June 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

No, i didn't. You do want smaller narrow torsos. But smaller CT. Nothing back tracked at all.

There is a point where the 'Mech is small enough that the ratio of sizing between STs and CT becomes irrelevant, but for larger 'Mechs (generally >50T), what you are saying is not true. There are no larger 'Mechs considered good where the CT is appreciably smaller than the STs, because that requires a STD and almost everything is inferior on a STD. Even an Atlas has torso sections roughly the same size as each other.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 04 June 2016 - 11:23 AM.