71 replies to this topic

[BTone]

Quadrupedal mechs are an intergral part of Battletech, and since they are technically mechs, are also significant in Mechwarrior as well. Now quadrupedal mechs were generally considered flawed because of their high maintenance costs and their reliability. This was the case until roughly the 3060s in which improved technology led to new and improved mech designs. Now 3060 is some ways away, but some quad mech designs exist around 3049 (MW:O time as of now). These designs include:


Fire Scorpion



Goliath



Scorpion



Snow Fox


Xanthos



Now one drawback of the quad mech design is it's high maintenance costs. But due to the nature of C-Bills in MW:O and how you don't have to repair every game if you so choose, I think this is not so undesirable. And the generally higher armor and stability of quad mechs would justify the repair costs. I do think this class of mechs would add an interesting strategical element to the game, and depending on what the game's programming allows, may even be possible in MW:O.

So, I ask the fellow MW:O community: What do YOU think of quad mechs, and furthermore, would you like to see them (at some point...) in MW: O?

I encourage a well thought out discussion here, and everybody please have a mutual respect for one another!

Edited by BTone, 18 July 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Jesterhead 777]

I would pilot one every chance I get in MWO. Assuming they perform as well as a bipedal 'Mech that is.

[BTone]

Jesterhead 777, on 18 July 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I would pilot one every chance I get in MWO. Assuming they perform as well as a bipedal 'Mech that is.

They would perform differently. Remember that by their very nature, they are supposed to operate differently. Imagine strafing...

Edited by BTone, 18 July 2012 - 11:09 AM.

[Viper69]

I would welcome more variety.

[Jesterhead 777]

BTone, on 18 July 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

They would perform differently. Remember that by their very nature, they are supposed to operate differently. Imagine strafing...

Yes, but what I mean is that there are no game breaking downsides to piloting a quad. This would take some good ideas from PGI.

Edited by Jesterhead 777, 18 July 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[bpphantom]

I'd like to see them, however, there are some pretty significant disadvantages to them once you remove the sidestep which was only a TT mechanic. If those can be overcome then I don't see why they wouldn't also be viable.

[Donner]

If there was Battle Armor in the game, then they would serve a great strategic purpose for lances. But, since there probably won't be any, they still would be cool to see used as light support or something to that effect.

[BTone]

Jesterhead 777, on 18 July 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Yes, but what I mean is that there are no game breaking downsides to piloting a quad.

Well like I said, as long as implementing quad variants would not require a major re-write of core game functions, then I think they could end up performing as well as bipedal mechs.

[Jesterhead 777]

BTone, on 18 July 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Well like I said, as long as implementing quad variants would not require a major re-write of core game functions, then I think they could end up performing as well as bipedal mechs.

I would give up any closed beta key I get if this was a reality. Seriously hoping for quads!

Edited by Jesterhead 777, 18 July 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[Shadowrrr01]

Would love to have a Goliath or Scorpion. They would be a nice change of pace to play

[bakon]

Kinda reminds me of what a Tank destroy's job would be, but in this case a Mech Destroyer

[BTone]

bpphantom, on 18 July 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

I'd like to see them, however, there are some pretty significant disadvantages to them once you remove the sidestep which was only a TT mechanic. If those can be overcome then I don't see why they wouldn't also be viable.

MW:O is after all following TT pretty closely ;-)

Donner, on 18 July 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

If there was Battle Armor in the game, then they would serve a great strategic purpose for lances. But, since there probably won't be any, they still would be cool to see used as light support or something to that effect.

Light support isn't their only role. The weapons on that Xanthos look catered towards some serious firepower.

Edited by BTone, 18 July 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[Bongo TauKat]

Jesterhead 777, on 18 July 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Yes, but what I mean is that there are no game breaking downsides to piloting a quad. This would take some good ideas from PGI.

Well quads do have a down side that no weapons can be leg or arm mounted. Not to mention that legging would be much more detrimental to maneuvering (i.e. One leg down no strafing or sidestepping, two legs down gimped).

[Evinthal]

I love quad 'mechs, and I would love to see them in the game at some point, but sadly I have a feeling we won't. I really hope I am wrong about that though. To me quad battlemechs are the more logical choice in the bipedal vs quadrupedal chassis debate, as they can hide behind cover better and for a more stable firing platform. But that is just how I feel.

[Eximar]

http://mwomercs.com/...__1#entry433958

25 pages for you

[BTone]

Bongo TauKat Talasko, on 18 July 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

Well quads do have a down side that no weapons can be leg or arm mounted. Not to mention that legging would be much more detrimental to maneuvering (i.e. One leg down no strafing or sidestepping, two legs down gimped).

Thus where the pilot has to decide what he is willing to pilot and weigh the pros/cons. A pretty neat strategical element I think...

[NPComplete]

I would like to see quads and would pilot them. Of course this is assuming a quad mech is not any worse than a biped. If losing one leg severely hampers movement I don't think being in a quad would be all that fun.

[BTone]

NPComplete, on 18 July 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I would like to see quads and would pilot them. Of course this is assuming a quad mech is not any worse than a biped. If losing one leg severely hampers movement I don't think being in a quad would be all that fun.

Legging them would prove difficult seeing as

a.) They Move pretty quickly (Think about legging a light...)
b.) The legs are GENERALLY low profile
c.) The legs are slender in some cases (Adding to the low profile idea)
d.) The legs are usually pretty heavily armored because of the fact they would be very less effective without even one leg.

Edited by BTone, 18 July 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[fett]

I found them to be a pain in the pencil and paper game, basically becasue the rules were poorly defined. for example can a mech walk on 3 legs? Does damage transfer work the same?

In a video game perhaps these mechanics can be worked out better but I would ot choose one of these simply because I don't like the design.. it is not like 4 legs makes them faster or more stable like a dog.

I'd prefer the developers devote their time to more important features than the mechanics of a novelty niche. like I donno,... unseen mechs perhaps! Or mechanics of a stock 3025 only server

[BTone]

fett, on 18 July 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

I found them to be a pain in the pencil and paper game, basically becasue the rules were poorly defined. for example can a mech walk on 3 legs? Does damage transfer work the same?

In a video game perhaps these mechanics can be worked out better but I would ot choose one of these simply because I don't like the design.. it is not like 4 legs makes them faster or more stable like a dog.

I'd prefer the developers devote their time to more important features than the mechanics of a novelty niche. like I donno,... unseen mechs perhaps! Or mechanics of a stock 3025 only server

Sarna declares them as more stable fire platforms. And I agree with you that the developers should focus on crucial things now, but down the road perhaps?