Jump to content

Making The Case For: Hct-3F Hatchetman


9 replies to this topic

#1 Mister Bob Dobalina

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 03:31 AM

Esteemed Ladies and Gentlemen.

I am here before you to make the case for the HCT-3F Hatchetman to be introduced into the MWO Universe.

The Hatchetman was, at its roll out in 3023, the first new Inner Sphere Mech design in a century. It featured revolutionary design choices, even after Clan standards: A melee weapon and a full cockpit ejection system. All in all, it was a very well rounded medium platform even capable engaging air units thanks to his targeting system.

During the years, the Hatchetman has seen many iterations in variants equipped with new weapon systems (e.g. Rotary ACs, MRMs etc.) or ECM versions (HTC-6D). Aside legendary engagements like the destruction of the Falcon Guard by Kai Allard Liao, the Hatchetman and his trademark iconic design had clearly left its mark.

It is clear, that the introduction of a Mech like the Hatchetman would be precedence for the addition of melee weapons in the first place. Nevertheless, it would be a significant addition to the variability of Mech choices. It would pave the way for formidable designs like the Axeman or the Hatamoto-Chi, to name a few at least.

Be aware that I do not propose this lightly as I know of the inherent problematic that has always been tied into direct kinetic engagement. Therefore, I have been thinking about how to introduce a hatchet / axe / sword into, and based on, the existing array of weaponry.


Consider this:

Let us treat the melee weapon like “just another weapon system” with a certain set of
  • range (x meters)
  • damage type (pinpoint, spread, ..)
  • cooldown period (x seconds)
  • charge up time (e.g. Gauss)


So here is my proposal shown after the example of the HCT-3F Hatchetman. The hatchet stands in for any other melee weapon in that case (Axe, Sword, Club, etc.)
  • The hatchet takes 3 tons of weight and takes 3 slots.
  • The hatchet forces lower arm and hand actuator and the required slot.
  • No other weapon can be added to a weapon group as soon as the hatchet is added to it. In reverse, the hatchet cannot be added to a non-empty weapon group.
  • The hatchet has a charge-up time and a trigger window comparable to a Gauss weapon.
  • The hatchet has a long recharge time in the likes of a LRM20 / AC20 or even longer.
  • The hatchet is aimed and targets with the crosshairs like any other weapon.
  • The hatchet has a range of 30m with complete damage drop-off beyond.
  • The hatchet creates pinpoint damage to the calculated impact point, following the same rules as for existing weaponry.
  • The destruction of the hatchet would destroy the wielding arm as well, as its static stability would have to be deeply integrated into the arm in the first place.

An argument can be made for the amount of damage, such a weapon would inflict. Bare in mind that you carry a weapon with significant tonnage and requirement of slots (in the case of the HCT, the Hatchet weighs about 7% of the overall weight) and can only be used within a very thin margin of opportunity and only up close. So, high damage would be justifiable. Another area of argumentation regarding the damage is
  • The speed of the Hatchetman at the time of the successful impact: Although it would be physically correct to include the objects own speed into the amount of kinetic energy transferred to the target (kinetic energy = mass x velocity squared), I would drop that for the sake of simplicity to make this better introducible into MWO.
  • The weight of the Mech wielding the melee weapon. As stated before, the weight has even less influence on the kinetic energy transferred, than the speed has. On the other hand, bigger Mechs wield bigger weapons. While the Hatchetmans Hatchet weighs 3t, the Axemans Axe weighs 5t. If we assign a certain damage potential to the weight of the melee weapon, we have an indirect tie to the size of the Mech and could define 2t for Light Mechs and 7t-8t with Assault Mechs

Imagine the Hatchet being a extremely short ranged laser that weighs a lot, has a friggin charge-up and cooldown time and its use is shown by an awesome animation, beating the living crap out of an enemy Mech.

This would not create a massive change in the games basic and underlying mechanics (full kinematic engagements, kicking, punching etc.) as rather being melee light. It is clear, that such a change would require massive and probably foundation changing shifts and reprogramming, therefore I tried to create a way less invasive yet way more doable solution.

So, I close my argument for a relatively easy introduction of melee –ish weapons in general and the roll-out of the Hatchetman in particular.

Please let me know what you think about my thoughts on the matter.

#2 Ovion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 3,182 posts

Posted 24 March 2018 - 12:39 PM

The problems for melee, that make it hard to implement are:
Variable animations (which'd take aaaaaages), Inverse Kinematics, etc, on top of the code issues.
Which are issues that CryEngine and the legacy of IGPs slapdash policies has made hard to deal with.

Edited by Ovion, 24 March 2018 - 12:40 PM.


#3 Jonathan8883

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 708 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 11:33 AM

Someone linked to this from the "guess the next mech pack" thread, so... the Hatchetman could just be rolled out with a bolt-on cosmetic. This would make it available for HBS (which does have melee), and would allow it to still function in the modern MWO environment without being at a disadvantage.

#4 Mister Bob Dobalina

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts

Posted 04 August 2018 - 04:37 AM

View PostOvion, on 24 March 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

The problems for melee, that make it hard to implement are:
Variable animations (which'd take aaaaaages), Inverse Kinematics, etc, on top of the code issues.
Which are issues that CryEngine and the legacy of IGPs slapdash policies has made hard to deal with.


I'd imagine that the wielding Mech would be the only animation that needs to be done. To keep it simple I could live with keeping the "being hit" animations of the receiving Mech as is. All in all I could very well live with a simple version rather than none at all.

But regarding the game engine I am completely with you: The Cryengine the version MWO based (and heaviliy modified) upon, is a friggin pig for those things in that extent.

#5 Ovion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 3,182 posts

Posted 04 August 2018 - 05:17 AM

If only the one, singular mech gets melee.
Or just a couple.
But then, it's also all that extra work for one (to a small number of) mech(s), which means it's not going to see return equal to the expense, which means it's not econnomically viable.
And it'd look poor and anemic as nothing responds to it.
It'd also require the inverse kinematics sorted still.

#6 Akillius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Corsair
  • The Corsair
  • 484 posts

Posted 04 August 2018 - 08:19 AM

Actually MWO is one of the few CryEngine games without melee.
(ie. Icarus Online, Crysis (series), Project Entropia Universe, Far Cry (series), ArcheAge, ect.)
Its not the engine but the code and libraries used to create MWO including their network system.
I could believe the issue is PGI's choice of coding, and their network system, and that Russ probably doesn't like melee.

But hey if PGI wants to add melee to their cryengine 3 game then there's lots of help out there to give a starting point...
http://docs.cryengin...s+and+Animation
http://docs.cryengin...G/Weapon+System
https://www.cryengin...ic.php?t=134962
http://docs.cryengin.../Weapon+Scripts

Maybe just drop in a mech sized flashlight thats melee capable?
https://www.cryengin...t-melee-weapons
Or just watch the youtube videos on how others do it.


https://vk.com/video...002c885e03620fb
https://books.google...ine%203&f=false


And surely PGI was given a manual from Crytek.

Unless they lost the manual..... like in that tv show The Greatest American Hero... o.O

Edited by Max Rickson, 04 August 2018 - 08:25 AM.


#7 Ovion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 3,182 posts

Posted 04 August 2018 - 10:39 AM

They weren't really given a manual, from what we know because IGP things.
The early days were a mess.

Edited by Ovion, 04 August 2018 - 10:39 AM.


#8 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 3,243 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 05 August 2018 - 07:11 AM

If you don't mind having that huge hatchet being a hitbox for your arm sure you can have it

#9 Akillius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Corsair
  • The Corsair
  • 484 posts

Posted 07 August 2018 - 04:39 PM

View PostOvion, on 04 August 2018 - 10:39 AM, said:

They weren't really given a manual, from what we know because IGP things.
The early days were a mess.

Yes they were and back then I went by Akillius until 2016.
Left for over a year after ipg got PGI to punch out those gold khan, +at same time ipg finally admitted no longer coding MWT.

#10 Mister Bob Dobalina

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts

Posted 17 June 2019 - 02:29 AM

View PostKursedVixen, on 05 August 2018 - 07:11 AM, said:

If you don't mind having that huge hatchet being a hitbox for your arm sure you can have it


I would support that strongly. The Hatchetman will have a Hatchet no matter what. Eats the tonnage and the slots. Just like the Cyclops has a fixed computer. So requesting the hatchet being also a target being part of the arm hitbox is totally legit.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users