Jump to content

A Case For Quads: The Scorpion


16 replies to this topic

#1 Garfuncle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 276 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 01:02 PM

Posted Image

Scorpion--55 ton IS medium mech.

There is an opportunity for MWO to stand out from past Mechwarrior titles to have something truly new and unique. In Battletech quad mech designs are few and far between, but among them I believe the Scorpion is the standout chassis that could work in MWO. This is primarily due to how long a quad mech would be. A medium class quad would fit in MWO by being similar in length to the Marauder, but much shorter given its four-legged stance. This would solve the problem of having a quad fit in a dropship, for example.

There are three things I believe are necessary to make quad mechs possible in MWO:

Inverse Kinematics

Rotary "turret" torso as seen on designs that in lore are without them such as Nova and Linebacker

Special rules for how the leg components would work in MWO's hard-point scheme

The first, inverse kinematics is required for the Scorpion to not hover over inclines. In the game that currently does not have inverse kinematics, this is noticeable in conventional bipedal mechs if you look for it. If a quad mech were to ever be introduced without inverse kinematics, the hovering over inclines would be ten times more noticeable and would even interfere with gameplay. However, with the recent announcement of inverse kinematics being re-implemented, I believe this issue can be resolved.

The next issue is how the torso would function. If we look at what PGI has done in the past for the Nova (and soon for the Linebacker) we can see that it is possible to add a gyro to mechs that didn't have them in lore. But another problem is the case of torso yaw and pitch. Given how low to the ground a quad would be, there is an issue with how maneuverable the torso would be moving up or down. This could be solved with a clever redesign from our local concept artist, or, the more difficult option, would be to tie it with how the legs work. Extending and retracting upward to allow for adequate ability to aim upward. Or it could just be an inherent weakness with the chassis, made up for the ability to perhaps have a full 360 turret like that of a modern tank.

The final problem lies with how the leg and arm components would have to function gameplay wise. A quad needs special rules in order for leg damage and destruction to work. The first option is to have the left and right set of legs sharing the left and right leg component. That is one pair of legs would share the same damage as one leg, and the other pair of legs sharing damage of the other leg. The arm component could then take the form of fins on the torso of the mech, as seen on mechs like the Cicada. The second option is to have the front legs act as the arms and the back legs to function as the leg components. A unique quirk to the chassis would involve the destruction of the mech if any arm and leg are lost, or both arms, or both legs.

I strongly believe that the inclusion of a quad mech such as the Scorpion would be an opportunity for PGI to make MWO truly stand out from its predecessors. It would also be a breathe of fresh air in a game that needs diversity to continue to thrive. I hope you consider the proposition of a quad mech more carefully, just as I hope you would find the possibility for it to bring unique and exciting gameplay.

Thank you.

Edited by Garfuncle, 07 July 2016 - 01:15 PM.


#2 627

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 4,571 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 01:05 PM

InB4 Juo Posted Image

however I doubt that there is still someone left that could code quadmechs into the game engine.

#3 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 07 July 2016 - 01:06 PM

It's not going to happen.

Spoiler


#4 Death Proof

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 546 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 01:06 PM

Russ hates quad mechs.

It'll never happen...not while there are lots more bipeds to make.

#5 627

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 4,571 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 01:11 PM

View PostDeath Proof, on 07 July 2016 - 01:06 PM, said:

Russ hates quad mechs.

It'll never happen...not while there are lots more bipeds to make.


Well, some years ago there was a similar statement about the unseen mechs. Or third person mode.

Never is quite a hard word. Not that I'm a big fan of quads, just saying that we had different position at diferent times or so Posted Image

#6 Death Proof

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 546 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 01:12 PM

View Post627, on 07 July 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:


Well, some years ago there was a similar statement about the unseen mechs. Or third person mode.

Never is quite a hard word. Not that I'm a big fan of quads, just saying that we had different position at diferent times or so Posted Image


Yeah that's why added the caveat...it won't happen until all the bipeds are out and they start scraping the bottom of the barrel. Posted Image

#7 Juodas Varnas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,534 posts
  • LocationGrand Duchy of Lithuania

Posted 07 July 2016 - 01:13 PM

View Post627, on 07 July 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

InB4 Juo Posted Image

however I doubt that there is still someone left that could code quadmechs into the game engine.

Technically i'm in the OP via the magic of the guy using my sketch as the picture, hahaha.

Now for the thread.
Inverse Kinematics IS coming back, according to PGI, so that's a "check".
I'm not entirely keen on having Quad-turrets though. I'd actually would prefer not having torso-twisting and having the ability to sidestrafe instead (basically i imagine the Quads using a more conventional FPS control layout. Mouse turning the entire mech and not just the torso)

#8 xVLFBERHxT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 698 posts

Posted 07 August 2016 - 10:45 AM

http://mattplog.devi...efire-606837073


Only for you Juodas (and all the others quad lovers...)Posted Image .

#9 Paigan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 2,789 posts

Posted 07 August 2016 - 11:04 AM

Scorpion: ugly
Goliath: very ugly
Tarantula: quite nice

Thin air if you ask me.

(sorry juodas for judasing)

Edited by Paigan, 07 August 2016 - 11:06 AM.


#10 Narcissistic Martyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 4,242 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 07 August 2016 - 11:27 AM

PGI doesn't wanna make the new walking animations for a tiny handful of mechs that were never very popular and might not sell well.

#11 Juodas Varnas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,534 posts
  • LocationGrand Duchy of Lithuania

Posted 07 August 2016 - 11:35 AM

View PostTrapJaw80, on 07 August 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

http://mattplog.devi...efire-606837073


Only for you Juodas (and all the others quad lovers...)Posted Image .

I've already seen it Posted Image

Beautiful work, that is!

View PostPaigan, on 07 August 2016 - 11:04 AM, said:

Scorpion: ugly



#12 Paigan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 2,789 posts

Posted 07 August 2016 - 12:33 PM

View PostJuodas Varnas, on 07 August 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

I've already seen it Posted Image

Beautiful work, that is!




No.
There's a saying (at least in German): "Opinions are the hunchbacked relatives of arguments."
You can defy anything by saying "It's just your opinion, so F off."
That is a "killer phrase" or more precisely "thought-terminating cliché" (Totschlagargument) (or short: "dumb")

My statement was NOT just an opinion.

The scorpion is bulky and clumsy. It looks like a box with legs.
It could hardly walk.
It could not torso twist and therefore hardly aim.
It IS ugly.
Impractical.
Inefficient.
Unusable.
Objectively.
Reasonably conceivable.

People who defend ignorance by saying "you have your opinion and I have mine, please respect that" are the doom of civilisation.

Try not to be one of them. Try to use reason instead of emotion.

Edited by Paigan, 07 August 2016 - 12:35 PM.


#13 Juodas Varnas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,534 posts
  • LocationGrand Duchy of Lithuania

Posted 07 August 2016 - 12:41 PM

View PostPaigan, on 07 August 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

The scorpion is bulky and clumsy. It looks like a box with legs. (That's just ********. It looks sleek and elegant, with sloped armor and practical design, high mounted weapons, nice cockpit placement)
It could hardly walk. (Fixed in the later variants)
It could not torso twist and therefore hardly aim. (There's a whole bunch of bipedal mechs without torso-twisting and unlike them, Scorpion at least had some advantages to overcome it)
It IS ugly. (Beauty is subjective, in my opinion, it's one of the best looking mechs in Battletech history)
Impractical. (It's literally one of the most PRACTICAL mech designs in battletech)
Inefficient. (like 99% of stock mechs in battletech? Very little mechs in Battletech are optimized, most of them are inefficient, because it's more FUN this way. Where's the fun if every single mech is a min/maxed god tier deus ex machina?)
Unusable. (what?)
Objectively. (what?)
Reasonably conceivable. (Yes. It's a conceivable design that makes sense and could actually exist. THANK YOU)

Your opinion is wrong and you're never getting that cookie!

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 07 August 2016 - 12:42 PM.


#14 cazidin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 07 August 2016 - 03:03 PM

PGI is very unlikely to spend the development time to rig animations and everything else for quad mechs if there are only 1 or 2 to sell. Would you like to buy another mechpack instead?

#15 Rakshasa

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 560 posts
  • LocationThe Underhive, Pomme De Terre

Posted 07 August 2016 - 04:02 PM

Spoiler


To be fair, it's generally a bad idea to use any of the old line-style artwork as the be-all and end-all of a chassis' physical performance. Some of those old pictures (examples here, here and here) were so awkward the 'mechs literally looked like they were about to topple over.

Now if Alex were to come up with new concepts for the Scorpion and other quads, those I would like to see Posted Image

Edited by Rakshasa, 07 August 2016 - 04:21 PM.


#16 The Basilisk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 3,270 posts
  • LocationFrankfurt a.M.

Posted 07 August 2016 - 04:03 PM

Wasn't there an official statement that Quads as well as picture in picture rearview is impossible due to engine restrictions ?

#17 roboPrancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bushido
  • The Bushido
  • 269 posts
  • LocationEh?

Posted 07 August 2016 - 06:03 PM

Even though I was totally with Russ on the Quad hate train a few months ago, I'm actually pretty curious as to how it could end up in MWO.

You know they have some pretty talented artists that can make miracles out of ugly old boxes. And I'm sure they could use something to flex their game design muscles again since things have been pretty static for a while (imho*) And I'm sure that the first quadmech to be released would sell lots of units just based off of the novelty of it.

That said, I doubt it will happen.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users