70 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

I was watching Snuggletime's latest video about the Cataphract 4x. The number of hardpoint is spot on, but the location is terrible.

But that got me thinking... in a practical warfare, is there a reason to design low mounted weapons? It seems to me like the designer could have easily "roll up the sleeves" per se, and hang the arm cannons a few meters more toward the top.

Now, on some mech, there's the case that the arms are actually not that rigid, as they have hands and can grab stuff, (For example, Atlas... I think) so that their low hanging arms aren't actually always "low hanging." (Just that, in the game, for practical purposes, they are)

But for a mech like Cataphract, it doesn't seem to be designed with a hand to start with. It's pretty much like a jet fighter with external missile hardpoints. So why do this?

I'm wondering not just form a Lore perspective, but a practical perspective. I mean, I would never design a tank with the treads higher than my cannon.

Could it be balance? Since all your kinetic energy is low to the ground, you get recoil reduction?

Could it be that it's designed to perch over a ridge? But then, a gun turret is not really well designed if the whole body has to be out there. (For practical comparison, EBJ is honestly a better a turret. And in a data-linked combat, the "super high mount" where other people can target for you is a lot better than cockpit level high mount)

Urban warfare where you only fight on horizontal planes so that mount height doesn't matter? But then, why design something with such limited application, right?

So the only other reason that I can think of, is for pilot safety. Rule 101, keep weapons away from the operator for maximum safety. (But then, ammunition storage can be stored within the torso... though you can technically argue that torso armor is a lot thicker, thus providing more protection anyhow for storing ammo)

Anyways, I don't have an answer. Wondering what's the opinion of the forum (as I know a lot of you guys are ex-veterans, perhaps you can provide better perspective on this)

(And also, this could be an interesting way to expand the roles of certain mechs... imagine if it has to do with recoil... instantly, Cataphract finds new life as a no-recoil ballistic platform whereas KDK-3 would wobble like a palm tree in hurricane.)

Edited by razenWing, 01 November 2016 - 01:16 PM.

[RestosIII]

Trying to bring military hardware logic to our mech game?



They're just mechs that are built to look cool. Mechs would be terrible in actual combat once it gets taller than 12 feet at max. They're giant targets with less capabilities than a tank+helo combo, that would sink into the ground as soon as they touched the ground. Things like the Cataphract are just as they are to look nice.

[Aiden Skye]

To get down to ground level with those scumbag lights to deliver the rainbow right up where the sun don't shine.

[Tordin]

Makes sense if to hit lower target that the torso mounted weapons cant reach/ aim well towards. Again, wouldnt it be fitting having some kind of cameras, linked to the hud for each arm? Especially if the cockpit wont allow you to look below so well. Take the Maulers cockpit view vs, say a Summoners.


Off topic I know but couldnt resist
I find it a bit arrogant to believe mechs cant be built in real life, similar to BT ones. Some fine tuning in apperance needed for function maybe, while still look like the original deal.
They said we humans wouldnt ever invent something like a car/ take to the skies/ invent internett/ land on the moon/ find other planets/ make stealth fighters/ create artificial diamonds better than the real deal/ gene therapy and so on, look where we are now. NOTHING is impossible.
Tech and vision are evolving, adapting, improving every minute.
As I see it, mechs shouldnt or cant replace tanks but complement each other likke buddies of war.Mechs and tanks working with jets are imo no sci-fi.
Well of course alot are in the BT universe but still! One day....

[SavageConvoy]

Well of course there is some hand waving of physics because rule of cool. But even if we gloss over that, from a game mechanic perspective it doesn't really do anything other than add a liability. High mounted weapons have no noticeable negatives. They are easier to clear over obstructions while low mounted weapons regularly have their trajectories blocked by terrain.

[kuma8877]

Combined arms, if you're looking for a logical reason. In the wider scope of BT and MW, mechs are generally not the only weapons of war on the field. MWO is a bad example for this obviously. Also, since most mechs are quite a bit more articulated in the fiction, it would seem quite ok for a marauder or cataphract to simply raise up their arms above their head to shoot over stuff.

[GotShotALot]

From a game design perspective, you want your mechs to look at least 'proportional' in some sense. From a BattleTech lore perspective, some mechs have 'traditional' looks/designs. (Battletech was never known for actually efficient/practical design BTW)

From a strictly MWO perspective, it's one way to provide variation / limitations on chassis performance. Although TBH I can't think of many mechs that use arm height for balance purposes. Most mechs with high mounts are already good performers, and most mechs with low mounts probably need buffs anyway.

[Felicitatem Parco]

There are two reasons why many Mechs in MWO have low-mounted weapons:

1.) BattleTech Mechs were drawn by comic book artists, not military consultants.
2.) The neckbeards demand low-mounted weapons because redesigning the Mechs to have good weapons mounts would be "catering to the Tryhards" who want the game to be more of a combat sim.

You'll see the same names on this forum decry anyone who complains about low-mounted weapons because they say only "meta tryhards" want BattleMechs to have combat-proficient designs; they call it a sign of weakness when you say low mounts are poor for combat purposes. Apparently it's a sin to ask for nice things because we're supposed to want poor combat designs. Anyone who asks for nice things obviously sucks so bad that they need a crutch to stand on.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 01 November 2016 - 01:40 PM.

[Deathlike]

A lot of it is based/related to the canon look/visual of the mech. You can see many examples of that as it were for most things. Any mech that has "hardpoint inflation" tends to have favorable locations (Enforcer-4R, Grasshopper-5H, etc.).

On the other hand, the arms of some mechs are weirdly done... particularly when it comes to missiles and energy (see Nova, Commando, and other abominations).

Edited by Deathlike, 01 November 2016 - 01:39 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Becasue when FASA stole were inspired by the designs from Harmony Gold, they didn't think they would have to dump all the cool stuff and come up with half-as ed designs like the cataphract.



Or maybe the low mount designs were derived from ag mechs and the weapons mounts were really intended for ground work. Rather than fix/raise the mounts they left em low since that's where they were in the original frame/chassis of the ag mech from which the new battlemech was manufactured. I.e. the designers were just unimaginative and cheap...in this hypothetical attempt at nerd loreing it.

[Bombast]

It's a mech game. Logic holds no sway here.

As for real life ground vehicles, you always place your weapon as high as you stably can. So the only reason to mount a weapon 'low' would be because mounting it higher would compromise stability.

The only exception to this is mounting low due to user accessibility, but with modern robotics and fire-by-wire systems, that's slowly disappearing.

[Bud Crue]

Prosperity Park, on 01 November 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

There are two reasons why many Mechs in MWO have low-mounted weapons:

1.) BattleTech Mechs were drawn by comic book artists, not military consultants.
2.) The neckbeards demand low-mounted weapons because redesigning the Mechs to have good weapons mounts would be "catering to the Tryhards" who want the game to be more of a combat sim.

You'll see the same names on this forum decry anyone who complains about low-mounted weapons because they say only "meta tryhards" want BattleMechs to have combat-proficient designs; they call it a using of weakness when you say low mounts are poor for combat purposes. Apparently it's a sin to ask for nice things because we're supposed to want poor combat designs. Anyone who asks for nice things obviously sucks so bad that they need a crutch to stand on.

Take it up with our dev overlords who have stated that all mechs should have equal value regardless of their role. They are the ones who seem to think "poor combat designs" have an equal place at the table. Who are we to argue? They know best and all that.

[jss78]

Prosperity Park, on 01 November 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

There are two reasons why many Mechs in MWO have low-mounted weapons:

1.) BattleTech Mechs were drawn by comic book artists, not military consultants.
2.) The neckbeards demand low-mounted weapons because redesigning the Mechs to have good weapons mounts would be "catering to the Tryhards" who want the game to be more of a combat sim.

You'll see the same names on this forum decry anyone who complains about low-mounted weapons because they say only "meta tryhards" want BattleMechs to have combat-proficient designs; they call it a sign of weakness when you say low mounts are poor for combat purposes. Apparently it's a sin to ask for nice things because we're supposed to want poor combat designs. Anyone who asks for nice things obviously sucks so bad that they need a crutch to stand on.

Not a very useful attitude IMO. Here's a simple truth for you: MWO is not exactly a huge game, and without ALL OF US here -- from the TT veterans to the comp-minded FPS fans -- NONE of us would have a game to play. Live and let live.

My view tends to be that it just such a big franchise, and the classic 'mech designs and the lore are the heart and soul of it. I wouldn't go re-designing the classic designs to optimise one FPS shooter. MWO is not such a big deal, these games come and go.

Edited by jss78, 01 November 2016 - 02:06 PM.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

from a strictly practical point of view, low slung mounts on long arms are useful because they allow far superior articulation and positioning (IE being able to raise an arm, rotate a shoulder) than torso mounts.

sadly tho in this game mechs cant raise their arms or rotate their shoulders so the theoretical advantage is lost.

Edited by Col Jaime Wolf, 01 November 2016 - 03:21 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Well in Lore, mechs could actually raise their arms up and fire at shoulder level without issue so low slung arms weren't an issue.

[Felicitatem Parco]

jss78, on 01 November 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

Not a very useful attitude IMO. Here's a simple truth for you: MWO is not exactly a huge game, and without ALL OF US here -- from the TT veterans to the comp-minded FPS fans -- NONE of us would have a game to play. Live and let live.

My view tends to be that it just such a big franchise, and the classic 'mech designs and the lore are the heart and soul of it. I wouldn't go re-designing the classic designs to optimise one FPS shooter. MWO is not such a big deal, these games come and go.

My attitude might not be "useful" but I am right. We have low mounts because PGI won't update the old BattleTech Mech designs in order to not disrupt the Nostalgia factor. Only the old generation of Battletech fans want to retain the classic non-combat designs; the current generation of Gamers actually want something more realistic and immersive, and we get shunned for it.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 01 November 2016 - 02:24 PM.

[Bombast]

Prosperity Park, on 01 November 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

2.) The neckbeards demand low-mounted weapons because redesigning the Mechs to have good weapons mounts would be "catering to the Tryhards" who want the game to be more of a combat sim.

You'll see the same names on this forum decry anyone who complains about low-mounted weapons because they say only "meta tryhards" want BattleMechs to have combat-proficient designs; they call it a sign of weakness when you say low mounts are poor for combat purposes. Apparently it's a sin to ask for nice things because we're supposed to want poor combat designs. Anyone who asks for nice things obviously sucks so bad that they need a crutch to stand on.

Halloween was yesterday, man. You can put the strawmen back in the attic for next year.

[Tristan Winter]

If we're trying to be completely realistic, or quasi-realistic?

Recoil would potentially be an issue if all your weapons are carried at shoulder level. Another reason might be that arm actuators, jump jets, heat sinks and other stuff is near the shoulders, so the low torso is the only space you have left.

The weird thing about Battletech is how all the mechs look completely different. If you look at aircraft, battle tanks or helicopters, they tend to look more and more similar as decades pass, because there are certain designs that are just plainly superior. With mechs in Battletech, there are no big design trends as the years pass. In fact, the game designers went out of their way to make each mech stand out and be easily recognisable.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

In lore mechs could raise their arms, so there actually weren't any low mounted hardpoints, an Atlas would just raise its arm similar to a super battle droid and fire when it needs to for example. Sadly they just don't add that in game.

[jss78]

Prosperity Park, on 01 November 2016 - 02:23 PM, said:

My attitude might not be "useful" but I am right. We have low mounts because PGI won't update the old BattleTech Mech designs in order to not disrupt the Nostalgia factor. Only the old generation of Battletech fans want to retain the classic non-combat designs; the current generation of Gamers actually want something more realistic and immersive, and we get shunned for it.

I get where you're coming from -- but here's the problem, there's no "current" generation of gamers. That older generation is still here. I don't purport to speak for them, I guess at 37 I fall right in the middle.