46 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

DEAR PGI

[Anjian]

Yeah like the Nova.

Edited by Anjian, 27 March 2017 - 01:23 AM.

[Anjian]

You don't want your quad mechs like these. Even with a rotating gun turret, the pivoting gun is useless since you can't see where you are aiming. The cockpit needs to turn with the gun.






What you want is this.

Edited by Anjian, 27 March 2017 - 01:40 AM.

[Xhaleon]

I think it would be worth it to take the quad movement rules into consideration so that there's something unique on offer. Since MWO is capable of detaching the player's view from the aiming reticule, I think we can make use of that. Remember that quads have less critical slots (pretty big natural disadvantage) due to having 4 legs and their requisite actuators, so they better be given some tangible advantage in return.

How about:

• Mouse controls both aiming and turning. The torso and arm functions of bipeds is translated to whole body turning and head movement + weapons.
  
• Our standard WASD now controls the throttle for both forwards/backwards and sidestepping movement. For those currently using constant throttle, perhaps the effect on sideways movement can be split to another option checkbox.
  
• All weapons are gimballed so they will always follow the circle reticule. The crosshair UI element is repurposed to help indicate the current direction of travel of the body.
  
• If the mech is standing still the quad mech will only turn its body if the player shifts his view beyond the limits of the head and weapon gimbal range. The Arm Lock control can be repurposed here to force the mech to turn and align with the player viewpoint when active (or the other way around), or some new control keybinds can be created to do this.

Edited by Xhaleon, 27 March 2017 - 01:40 AM.

[Anjian]

What's better than four legs? Having six. This is from an alpha of a game being developed on iOS, said to be using Unreal 4. Turn to 0.43 and 1.50 of the video for some spider mech mayhem.

[Anjian]

Xhaleon, on 27 March 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

I think it would be worth it to take the quad movement rules into consideration so that there's something unique on offer. Since MWO is capable of detaching the player's view from the aiming reticule, I think we can make use of that. Remember that quads have less critical slots (pretty big natural disadvantage) due to having 4 legs and their requisite actuators, so they better be given some tangible advantage in return.

How about:

• Mouse controls both aiming and turning. The torso and arm functions of bipeds is translated to whole body turning and head movement + weapons.
  
• Our standard WASD now controls the throttle for both forwards/backwards and sidestepping movement. For those currently using constant throttle, perhaps the effect on sideways movement can be split to another option checkbox.
  
• All weapons are gimballed so they will always follow the circle reticule. The crosshair UI element is repurposed to help indicate the current direction of travel of the body.
  
• If the mech is standing still the quad mech will only turn its body if the player shifts his view beyond the limits of the head and weapon gimbal range. The Arm Lock control can be repurposed here to force the mech to turn and align with the player viewpoint when active (or the other way around), or some new control keybinds can be created to do this.

If the game uses third person, well MWO does, but a lot of people don't use third person view, you can use third person to aim the guns separately or asynchronous from the limited view field of first person view, because an FPV would require the cockpit to turn around in the same general direction as the guns in a fixed manner, but if you are in a TPV, viewpoint and gun alignment isn't necessary.

Edited by Anjian, 27 March 2017 - 02:39 AM.

[FupDup]

Quad mechs replace their arms with two more legs, meaning that their critical slots are massively reduced right out of the box. This means they have less space for equipment and tech upgrades.

Since they can't torso twist, they'd also have a hard time spreading damage in MWO.

[Mechteric]

Easy answer: they won't be introduced.


I love easy answers

[Tarogato]

Juodas Varnas, on 26 March 2017 - 09:32 PM, said:

Hey, oh quad-master,

Do you know of any quads that might not be on Sarna? In particular, I'm looking for any Clan light mechs with at least one variant pre-jihad (such that it would be conducive to MWO)

The Jaguar is unfortunately Dark Age, and the Snow Fox has terrible hardpoints to work with.


Here's some Tarantula builds, for the fun of it:

[Juodas Varnas]

Tarogato, on 28 March 2017 - 12:20 AM, said:

Hey, oh quad-master,

Do you know of any quads that might not be on Sarna? In particular, I'm looking for any Clan light mechs with at least one variant pre-jihad (such that it would be conducive to MWO)

The Jaguar is unfortunately Dark Age, and the Snow Fox has terrible hardpoints to work with.


Here's some Tarantula builds, for the fun of it:

As far as i know, there no official mechs absent from Sarna.net

And the Snow Fox, being a battlemech, would probably not be THAT bad.
Considering how it would probably be even smaller than the Locust.
I mean one variant would have the 1 head mounted E hardpoint (for clans that's not an issue) and the torso mounted E hardpoints would probably get inflated to 2 in each torso.
5 E hardpoints on a 20 tonner don't sound that bad.
And the Snow Fox 2 has a torso mounted LRM-10, which could be inflated to 3 (maybe) M hardpoints, which i guess could be at least usable.

[Jingseng]

Can quads actually move laterally? I don't remember that being the case. I remember they could move diagonally more quickly (reduced MP cost) but not in fact fully laterally (but then, hexes aren't octagons, so...). I also seem to remember the front 'legs' were still treated as arms in terms of critical slots. Not certain there though.

If they could, that would pretty much completely f- your aiming. To move perfectly laterally (or really, even diagonally) on a quadruped base would require a lot of flexion - compression... the net pilot effect being a wide range of up and down motion as you move laterally (consistent with lore - quadrupeds were often considered the worst rides around). When you do the minimal thinking about how a four limbed base moves in different directions, you either arrive at something not in the game at all (think X wing motion opening and closing) but if added ought to equally applicable to biped to increase their range of motion as well, or else something wholly incompatible with rigid metal structure lacking biological elasticity ( 2 x 2 alternating leg motions) when applied in a lateral sense.

Just try moving perfectly lateral yourself. There are only a couple different ways to do it, most of which are ridiculously slow, and only one of which is at all reasonable... but which requires a range of flexibility and elasticity pretty much not found at all in the rigid systems we envision for mechs (because the legs move along exactly one plane... they are not gimballed, as it were).

If we added that type of motion for quads (being able to move the leg along a second, perpendicular plane... that is, straight out side ways), it makes no sense that we can't do it for bipeds. But then the upshot is, those limbs are of precise length... the further out laterally the legs go, the 'shorter' the mech becomes. The closer the legs return to proper standing alignment, the 'taller' the mech becomes. Applied in motion, you are moving in a sinusoidal wave, and your aiming reticle motion goes right to hell.

I really can't see them wanting to open that can of worms. It would probably be difficult to deal with it in programming, would create a large backlog of reanimations to apply to existing mechs, and/or cause a cbillstorm of controversy to make the skill tree and energy draw debacles seem like polite discourse. You know how much heated crap goes around about clan vs. is XL and tech? Now you are suggesting adding a type of motion to one specific style of mech that completely outclasses the maneuverability of all other mechs? Because yes... being able to move laterally without having to first ponderously turn IS a huge advantage. Additionally, you are moving the game from tank-like combat towards fps like combat. Not sure that is the direction they want.

The simplest thing they could do with quads, and what I see as most likely, if at all, is to add them using the existing system. Quads are just battlemechs that are shorter and with 4 legs. full stop.

Optionally, they could add systems that let you alter your height, rotate weapons (use an alt cockpit screen to see from the weapon perspective), give torso weapons full arm actuator mobility, steadier jump aiming (premised on more evenly distributed jets), better hill climb and legged speeds, better hitboxes (those legs could do a job shielding torso), better heat dissipation/efficiency (heat being released straight up away from you, from a broader base, rather than from vertically stacked, narrow base, along the body and other heat vents).

But whole different motion? I honestly don't see it. Not the least of which for how long you all have been waiting on IK, how JJ have been changed in the past... etc. Sorry.

[Alistair Winter]

Like a tank with limited side-strafing ability. Isn't it rather obvious?

[Tarogato]

Juodas Varnas, on 28 March 2017 - 12:46 AM, said:

And the Snow Fox 2 has a torso mounted LRM-10, which could be inflated to 3 (maybe) M hardpoints, which i guess could be at least usable.

Actually, the LRM10 is in the head location, which is... problematic... when it comes to hardpoint inflation. And the mech literally has no other weapons. I could assume an inflation to the torsos, but... that's super sketchy.

[Shifty McSwift]

They could just keep the tank style movement and make quads (or more) just have huge turning speed capacities as well as the increased torso turn capacity, those would still be pretty awesome bonuses.

[Tarogato]

Jingseng, on 28 March 2017 - 01:14 AM, said:

Can quads actually move laterally? I don't remember that being the case.
[...] To move perfectly laterally (or really, even diagonally) on a quadruped base would require a lot of flexion - compression...
[...] Just try moving perfectly lateral yourself. There are only a couple different ways to do it, most of which are ridiculously slow, and only one of which is at all reasonable... but which requires a range of flexibility and elasticity pretty much not found at all in the rigid systems we envision for mechs (because the legs move along exactly one plane... they are not gimballed, as it were).

About half the quads have oblique angled legs, kinda like a spider or many insects have. It's not at all analogous to human motion. I imagine this quads as able to side strafe at their full running speed for the purposes of MWO, since they are essentially symmetrical across four axes. Examples include Tarantula, Scorpion, Fire Scorpion, Bishamon...

Though there are quads also with parallel legs. I can't imagine many of these being able to side strafe at all, but many of them (such as Goliath) might be able to move in reverse at the same speed as forward.

Quote

[...] cause a cbillstorm of controversy to make the skill tree and energy draw debacles seem like polite discourse. You know how much heated crap goes around about clan vs. is XL and tech? Now you are suggesting adding a type of motion to one specific style of mech that completely outclasses the maneuverability of all other mechs? Because yes... being able to move laterally without having to first ponderously turn IS a huge advantage. Additionally, you are moving the game from tank-like combat towards fps like combat. Not sure that is the direction they want.

The simplest thing they could do with quads, and what I see as most likely, if at all, is to add them using the existing system. Quads are just battlemechs that are shorter and with 4 legs. full stop.

Optionally, they could add systems that let you alter your height, rotate weapons (use an alt cockpit screen to see from the weapon perspective), give torso weapons full arm actuator mobility, steadier jump aiming (premised on more evenly distributed jets), better hill climb and legged speeds, better hitboxes (those legs could do a job shielding torso), better heat dissipation/efficiency (heat being released straight up away from you, from a broader base, rather than from vertically stacked, narrow base, along the body and other heat vents).

But whole different motion? I honestly don't see it. Not the least of which for how long you all have been waiting on IK, how JJ have been changed in the past... etc. Sorry.

Even the quads capable of full lateral movement aren't inherently advantaged over bipedal mechs. They have two massive downsides - no shield arms to protect torsos, and more limited crit space (inferior builds). There's also the problem of quads most likely conforming to the angle of terrain to a noticeable degree, which will undoubtedly throw off aim (although, it seems that bipedal mechs already have this feature, and it is not represented in the cockpit. For instance, if you watch a DWF hit an incline, the entire body of the mech will tilt to angle with the terrain, but the cockpit view still shows you as dead ahead, as if your mech is always perfectly aligned with the horizon)

The advantages I see for quads:

- smaller torsos than bipedal mechs, since a second pair of legs is larger than a pair of arms
- ability to climb steeper slopes
- 360 torso twist for many, if not all quads (not many of them have separate legs/torso in original art, this can be re-imagined, as was done with mechs like the Nova, Viper, Cicada, Locust, etc.)
- harder to leg (destroying one leg hardly has an effect on a quad, and losing two legs still isn't as bad as a bipedal mech losing one of its legs. Or at least, that's how I imagine it.)
- less cockpit shake
- higher acceleration/decel values than bipedal mechs (lower center of gravity)
- for quads of 50 tons and up, safely stripping armour from the legs for an additional 1 or 2 tons of podspace compared to most bipedal builds.
- many quads can be modeled to have the legs arch high enough to protect/shield the torso a bit and naturally spread damage (specifically the oblique-legged ones)
- all quads pretty much have all high mounts all the time


These advantages aren't game-breaking; far from it. I think they might barely make up for the disadvantages I mentioned earlier. If that's the case, then quads would be unique, and fun to play, without being necessarily better or worse than bipeds.


Also, quads don't necessarily require IK. A quad has four points of contact with the ground... and so does any four-wheeled vehicle. It's not like there are no humvees in cryengine. Sure, because quads have legs instead of tires, IK would make it look so much better, but it's not 100% a necessity.

[The Basilisk]

So ok for the sake of the discussion...still I stress out that quads where deemed impossible to implement a long time ago and there whas no update at this...and no it was not the inclinement mechanic.

The biggest downsides of Quads in Battletech terms where that they do have 4 Leggs critwise.
So no arm crit slots and therfore less total crits than a Battlemech.
Also Turrets where possible but did cost extra tonnage and crits.
Lateral movement, "sidestepping", is possible but costs more movement points, but less than a humanoid turning, stepping and turning again.
The most gamechanging feature of quads are their lower height, so you could take cover even behind level 1 obstacles.

MWO wise I do not think the best features of quads could be implemented sufficiently to make up for their downsides of having less space for extralight struckture and engins.
Since turning and running has no real impact on mechs in MWO sidestrafing wouldn't be that remarcable.
Their heightened resistance to becomming prone is also something that will not be reflected in MWO.
That leaves only one trait that could make up for their downsides and this is their low height and slim boddy shape.
Quadds are white elephants to me.

So I realy do think ressources to implement the movement models and mechanics could be spend elswhere with far more positive impact on the game.

Edited by The Basilisk, 28 March 2017 - 02:48 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

Before anyone critizes it, I just wanna post this awesome drawing made by Alex.

[Khobai]

I imagine quads would have 360 torso twist but no arms or arm mounted weapons. all torso weapons. so quads would be highly disadvantaged in a vertical fighting situation.

and they would have four leg hit locations instead of two arms and two legs. quads would be pretty hard to leg but the torso would be easier to hit because no arms to shield it.

quads would also be able to laterally strafe left and right unlike battlemechs. not sure how much of an advantage that would be. might help dodging slower projectiles like lrms.

lastly if knockdown is ever readded, quads would basically be impossible to knockdown. would actually be a pretty decent advantage. getting knocked down sucked pretty bad when it was in the game before.

Edited by Khobai, 02 April 2017 - 12:53 AM.

[Johnny Z]

[Pariah Devalis]

Even an mammal style leg array might be able to sidestep, if each leg is attached ball in socket style. Instead of a rigid monoaxial point of rotation, ball in socket would allow lateral movement of legs, even on a more flat, streamlined design.

I also concur with Juodas as far as general handling principles.

WS as throttle forward and backward, A and D as left and right, though probably locked to a throttle decay style function. No torso twist, but mouse movement yaws the entire mech. Limited up/down depression of the guns. I would have simplified the legging rules, however: One leg is a 30% loss of speed, two legs is 60% speed or 40 KPH (whichever is slower), three legs is dead. No finicky sidestep disabled additional rules to the quad, and no ability to lose 3/4 of the legs and still move. At that point, you'd be dealing with one leg trying to overcome three bricks plus the torso. It wouldn't be moving much.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 02 April 2017 - 09:33 AM.